You can use the terms "and" & "or" in your search; "or" phrases are resolved
first, then the "and" phrases. For example, searching for "black hole and
galaxy or universe" will find articles that have the phrase "black hole" in them
and also have either "galaxy" or "universe" in them. Please note that other
search syntax like quote marks, hyphens, etc. are not currently supported.

When you view web pages with matches to your search, the terms you searched for will be highlighted in yellow.

If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

The 1999 movie ‘The Matrix’ explored a world where humans are plugged into a virtual reality. They go about their daily lives, unaware that the sensory inputs that they receive do not originate from their perceived reality. When a person, Alice, within the matrix observes a watermelon falling from a skyscraper, there is no skyscraper, nor watermelon, nor even gravity responsible for the watermelon's fall. Instead a complex computer program works silently in the background. The initial state of the watermelon, and the location of the observer, is all encoded by bits. The computer takes these bits, processes them according to a predetermined algorithm, and outputs the electrical signals that dictate what the observer should see.

To we who live in the twenty first century, whose lives are enmeshed in various information processors, the eventual plausibility of the Matrix does not appear as radical as it once did. One by one, the photos we view and the mail we send, have been converted to digital form. Common questions, such as, “How many megabytes does that song take up?" reflect a society that is becoming increasingly accepting of the idea that the observable qualities of every object can be represented by bits, and physical processes by how they manipulate these bits. Some scientists have even gone as far as to speculate we could live within a giant information processor, a giant ‘Matrix’, programmed to simulate the laws of physics we know.

If our observed reality were indeed a simulation constructed by some ultimate architect, what is the underlying code of our universe? What sort of information processing would they use? Would it be merely classical logic on classical bits, or would they harness the unique properties of quantum logic? On first impressions, such questions seem difficult to answer. After all, all observations we make lie within ‘The Matrix’, how could we say anything about what lies beyond?

One way to approach this problem is to walk in the shoes of the architect. Suppose you were an young architect, tasked to simulate a simple reality. A universe, consisting of a single observable bit evolving in discrete time steps, such that at each time, the bit flipped with probability 0.2 (see note (*) below, for why I have chosen 0.2). Being a beginner, you are presented with two potential solutions:

(i) A system consisting of two binary coins. At each time-step, the system sets the observable bit to 0 or 1 depending on whether the state of the two coins coincide, and one of the two coins is chosen at random and flipped with probability 0.2.

(ii) A system consisting of a single coin. At each time-step, the system sets the observable bit to 0 or 1 depending on the state of the coin, and the coin is flipped with probability 0.2.

Either solution works: The output of either system behaves exactly according to desired specifications. Yet, if tasked to select one of the two, most of us are likely to prefer the second option. A solution with a single coin simply appears more appealing than a solution that requires two.

This natural sense of aesthetics was first formalized by William of Ockham, a 13th century friar. Occam’s Razor posited that ‘plurality is not to be posited without necessity.' When given two different ways of doing the same thing, there’s no sense in choosing the more complex one without good reason. Since its inception, the principle has become an important heuristic that guides the development of theoretical models in quantitative science. In the words of Isaac Newton, “We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances."

When applied to the two potential simulators above, the natural appeal of the second solution can be given more rigorous footing. The first simulator kept track of two coins to simulate our toy universe. Since all configurations occur with equal probability, it would have an entropy of 2. In contrast, the second simulator keeps track of only a single coin, and thus requires only half this entropy. If we are tasked with simulating a plethora of such realities with a hard drive of limited space, we could manage twice as many realities with the second approach.

Therefore, should we assume that whoever designed The Matrix would have similar aesthetic tastes, and so we may use similar reasoning to deduce the underlying code to our own reality––or, at the very least, deduce how our reality should be designed if our computer overlords cared about how much storage space they used. These considerations thus motivate the question:

If we are to construct a simulator of observed reality, would we need to store less data if we chose to exploit quantum dynamics?

Let us return to the simple universes that consist of a single bit evolving in discrete time steps. The behavior of such realities can be characterized as a stochastic process, a probability distribution over a sequence of bits. A simulator for a stochastic process can be thought of as a physical system that stores select information about past outputs, and uses them to generate the require statistics for the future (see image, top right). Ideally, we want to construct a simulator that as simple as possible, such that its information storage requirements are minimized.

A priori, it is not obvious quantum dynamics would be of direct benefit; after all, the required behavior is merely a string of classical bits that obey a particular classical probability distribution. Quantum dynamics does seem to be of immediate relevance.

Yet, classical simulators have turned out to be less than ideal. Take for example, the simple case of our toy reality that is simulated by a single coin. The amount of information stored within the simulator is a single bit, namely the state of the coin. However, even if we could observe the entire future of this reality, we would still be unable to ascertain whether our simulator started with a coin in state 0, or state 1. Thus, not all information stored by the simulator was ever visible in its simulated reality, and thus should never be stored in the first place.

This is in fact, a generic property of classical simulators. For most stochastic processes, even the provable optimal classical simulator stores more information than it needs. If a binary property ‘X’ (such as the state of coin), had an effect on the future evolution of observed reality, then the value X must be stored. This is unavoidable; even all future observations made within the reality does not guarantee one can deduce the value of X. Therefore, classical simulators erase information; they contain a source of irreversibly that cannot be removed.

Quantum simulators, however, have greater potential freedom. Instead of allocating a full bit to store the value of X, we may store the conditions ‘X= 0’ and ‘X=1’ in non-orthogonal states. Consequently, the simulator saves memory, as it was never sure what state the property was in the first place. Nevertheless, we show in Nature Communications, this week, that it is often possible to engineer dynamics such that the simulator can still replicate the dynamics of our desired reality (full paper available at arXiv:1102.1994v4 ). The use of quantum processing has essentially sharpened Occam’s razor, allowing us to shave off the parts of X that we never needed to remember.

The applications of this result go beyond programming The Matrix for memory conscious computer overlords. The minimum amount of information required to simulate a given stochastic process is a significant topic of study in the field of complexity theory, where it is known in scientific literature as statistical complexity. The rationale is that if we are supplied any complex system, we can still make a meaningful statement about how complicated it must be by looking only at the statistical complexity of its output. If the system displays a statistical complexity of C, then whatever the underlying mechanics of the system, we need at least a memory of C to simulate its statistics.

The fact that this memory can be reduced quantum mechanically implies the counterintuitive conclusion that quantizing such simulators can reduce their complexity beyond this classical bound, even if the process they're simulating is purely classical. Many organisms and devices operate based on the ability to predict and thus react to the environment around them, the fact that it is possible to make identical predictions with less memory by exploiting quantum dynamics implies that such systems need not be as complex as one originally thought.

Nevertheless a puzzle remains: Quantum simulators are still not wholly reversible. For many stochastic processes, even the best quantum simulators we know still erase information--they still store unnecessary information. Could an even more general probability theory, with even more bizarre correlations, side-step this restriction? If our reality indeed lay with a grand Matrix run by some memory-conscious architect, he could certainly prefer a ‘quantum Matrix’ over a classical one; but could he have some even more exotic Matrix in mind?

Note (*): Many of you might wonder why in this toy universe, I chose to have each bit flip with probability 0.2 rather than the more natural 0.5. The answer is actually rather illuminating. 0.5 is a bit of a special case. If you, as the young architect, were given the task to design a universe where each bit was to be flipped with probability 0.5, then you should consider yourself very lucky. To anyone living inside the universe, the universe would look like a string of completely random bits. To simulate this, you won't need anything sophisticated. Just design a system that blindly tosses a coin into the air! Such a system is remarkably simple, it would need to keep track of absolutely nothing!

It doesn't go into the nitty-gritty details, but does offer a quick overview of the research, as well as a quick tribute to the Flyign Spaghetti Monster. Hopefully, those interested in a little more information will find it useful!

Thank you for showing us that. (It would be helpful if you could speak more slowly. As what you were saying was unfamiliar it was hard for me to follow you at that pace.)

A couple of thoughts that maybe (or may not be)irrelevant to you.

The trouble (for me) with having an external simulation is that we end up with infinite regression. There might be simulation within simulation and so on and who knows where it finally ends in the material hardware that is generating the the data and the simulations produced from it. Because ultimately we can not have a simulation without the data generator and simulator.Or the creation of software -and the hardware to run it- producing the simulation. Using the razor there is no need for an external simulation of reality only the generator of the data, that will be input to an observer who becomes the simulator.

I think biology holds the answers of how the means to generate a complex simulation can be simply stored. It is likely that the equations (the mathematical relations in vivo )themselves, within the biochemistry and physics of the brain, are far simpler than the output that can be generated from them. Just as is seen in chaos theory.

Tiny differences in input can generate very different output. The random unpredictability and diversity of input is what turns the simulation from something simple into something complex with diverse possibilities of output. The pattern and order observed that appears non random is a result of the generator providing the inputs to the simulation. Those inputs to the observer- simulator having been formed from unpredictable inputs to the relatively simple pattern generating equations of external nature.

In this (to my mind more satisfying) scenario external nature is the data generator and the observer is the simulator rather than there being an external simulation produced by the software and hardware of an unknown architect.

The code matters in-so-far as it must come close enough for replication into something about reality. That matter of 'close enough' means that it is still a code without meaning unless an intelligence decides, by comparing it to possible meaningful patterns, that it is close enough, hopefully, for succesful interpretation. The part that is always missing, in my opinion, is that code is a substitute for meaning that must already exist. That meaning must be comprehensive enough to allow for all the effects that have occurred or will ever occur to be understood in a useful manner.

Code cannot generate its own meaning. The free-bees, attached to mechanical perspective without justification, such as evolving meanings from no meaning to all necessary meaning should never have been allowed for real scientific enquiry. Remarks that first cause intelligence is somehow inferior to pretended and inexplicable evolving intelligence, completely incomprehensible except in one's imagination, cannot be scientifically substantiated at any level along the way of the proposed development. That is what I think. The one possible exception of modern physics theories is that of Dr. Klingman's.

Still tying to figure out where this is going. Is it about how the universe might work or how to develop better more efficient information storage? I have given my opinion on why I don't think the external simulation idea should survive the razor. When it comes to information storage my question is how good/accurate should the retrieved information be? Would any inaccuracy or deterioration be acceptable?

Rather than storing all of the information to reproduce an extremely accurate reconstruction of events, the minimum information could be stored to allow performance of a new simulation that will have similarity to the event giving the input data that was stored.So not a reconstruction but a new fabrication.

Then it might be possible to have a sufficiently useful "picture" of source events for practical purposes. Which seems to be how human memory works. In that it is not entirely accurate. Recall can change over time. Recall can modify the data used for subsequent recall and new input can also modify the recall, sometimes leading to false memory. Yet for most practical purposes human memory works to supply information that is useful for function and application to other tasks. Development of this kind of memory could be another way in which technology can mimic nature to get the most efficient solution. Nature has already had millions of years to work on the problem.

There is a price in the compaction of the data stored and that is the loss of accuracy IE similarity of output recall compared to events providing input (truthfulness) but when there is a vast amount of potential data having more than is necessary for acceptable performance would be a hindrance to efficiency rather than a help. For a biological organism that could be the difference between surviving or not.

Thanks for your comment. I'm pleased that, given your expressed concerns, you feel that my theory addresses them. However that's not the focus or even concern of Dr. Gu and his coauthors. Given the current, dominant model of consciousness as an emergent phenomenon 'meaning' is epi-phenomenal.

I respond poorly to physics discussions based on any reference to "The Matrix" but perhaps his blog is misleading in that I do not find any mention of such in his arXiv paper. Instead they address the quite reasonable question of "a maximally efficient model" for computation.

I do agree with their statement that "Any computation is physical" and I have devoted no small part of my career to the consequences of this, including simply using physics simulations for decades. This also has the interesting consequence that, for those deluded physicists who think that the universe is a 'simulation', this implies that the computation that simulates physical reality is generated from the physical reality that it produces. That's real bootstrapping for you.

You're absolutely correct. External simulation is merely one way of thinking about the problem. Fundamentally, what we solve is about how much memory one needs to keep track of to replicate the statistics of a given system of interest.

Indeed, another way of thinking about this that the simulation is done from the perspective of the observers.After all, what we take as input from the universe is just classical data. Our brain processes that data, and uses it to construct a model of the universe.

As usual, the actual scientific result can be interpreted philosophically in the many different ways.

In regards to your question of partial simulation, it is a very interesting one! Indeed, in many situations, it is only necessary to have a good predictor of what's on, especially if there is a large memory trade off.

One way of thinking about how this fits into our framework is from the engineering (The Matrix) perspective. You are tasked to design a simulator that gives specified output statistics. In reality, these statistics are just an 'approximation' of what your simulator is designed to simulate.

Of course, one can also dive into the mathematics, and ask given a Stochastic Process, how much memory to I need to be able to predict 'x' bits about the future of this process. Such work has already been done for classical simulators. It would certainly been interesting to generalize these quantum mechanically. Preliminary investigation of special cases show that the advantage of quantum simulators persist.

Thank you for that clarification. I purposefully used the word 'possibly' because if there was anything pertinent to say, you should be the one to say it. I find referrences to the 'Matrix' to be incomplete in the most important sense.

"...This also has the interesting consequence that, for those deluded physicists who think that the universe is a 'simulation', this implies that the computation that simulates physical reality is generated from the physical reality that it produces. That's real bootstrapping for you."

The example I would use is a microcircuit inverter that is bootstrapped. It is purely a mechanical event based upon a mechanical input that is mechanically amplified. All by mindful design that causes it to be an important tool in simulating logic.

I don't look for a response, unless I have mistated something that might be mis-interpreted as speaking for you. I find that the mechanical imagination, usually conveniently 'mystified' by use of the 'fog-of-complexity', requires far more than forum messages for correction. This is my opinion. Thank you.

again this may or may not be relevant to you. I noticed that you said " Many organisms and devices operate based on the ability to predict and thus react to the environment around them, the fact that it is possible to make identical predictions with less memory by exploiting quantum dynamics implies that such systems need not be as complex as one originally thought."

Picking up on the "..need not be as complex as one originally thought".

Daniel Kahnman has written a book "Thinking fast and slow", in which he talks about the ways in which people think. He describes the various biases that influence thinking and points out that there are two systems for decision making. Fast, automatic intuition and relatively slow reason and deliberation. For most choices that have to be made in life the outcome of the decision is insignificant and so a decision can be made quickly. For example It doesn't really matter if I buy brand X or brand Y tomatoes. Kahnman calls system 2 (the slow deliberation) a "lazy controller". Though it can reject an intuition it rarely does so, content to go along with the "guestimates of system 1".

So the precision of predictions that we make in everyday life and the rationality of the decisions that are made is probably -severely- overestimated. One of the biases he mentions (out of 17) is "What-you-see-is-all-there-is" (WYSIATI) Which is drawing strong conclusions from incomplete information.For most everyday purposes it doesn't matter that that occurs as the outcome does not have any severe affect upon the life of that person.What is important though is being able to spot where the outcome is going to be significant. Or where there are balance points that could alter steady trends or patterns.In the human being there is often a switch in the way the information is handled at those points that are identified.

For most of those coin tosses it is irrelevant what they are because it makes no significant difference. Out in the world the trends and patterns continue whatever. So it is hardly worth storing the information about them at all other than there is a insignificant coin toss occurring, which can easily be simulated without any stored data about what actually occurred. But the balance points are significant and what makes them different from just any other point is what needs to be identified.

If only they are stored then the rest can be filled in like join the dots. IE the significant events are remembered and the rest forgotten but it doesn't matter. It would not be perfect as so much is not stored but more efficient because there is far less data to be handled.But missing a balance point would be a bad thing to do as it would potentially have severe consequences.That sort of ties back into what level of inaccuracy /deterioration is acceptable? How much better than human memory, that is able to simulate past events,would it need to be and for what purpose?

You know , I beleive that we are so far of this ultim code. This matrix is so far. In the two scales furthermore. The quantum design is like a relativistic foto of our universal sphere and its cosmological spheres considering the serie of uniqueness of course. Our Unievrsal reality is in evolution and the codes are fascinating.

For an universal realistic simulation of our universal sphere and its spheres, it is essential at my humble opinion to consider this universal serie of uniqueness(and the correlated volumes of spheres). The quantization can be made with the complexification of evolution. After all a boson is like a fermion in a kind of BEC extrapolated by the mind. A sure thing is that the number of entanglement inside the universal sphere is so difficult to find .Now the serie of uniqueness , it is the same . Can we find the number of stars , planets, BH ...inside this universal sphere and its evolutive volumes? No of course , not at this moment! It is the same for the two main scales in 3D and a time constant.We have our limits and walls and our young age at the universal scale. That's why the universal simulation is so difficult in a pure realistic point of vue.

Now about the string, I must admit you that it is just for the computing. If the string is correlated with the pure 3D sphere. This becomes very relevant about a realistic quantization of this mass. After the volumes and the rotations spinals and orbital of the serie of uniqueness(with a main central sphere)make the road of evolution between m and hv in a general point of vue of polarization.

A sphere is more logic, more rational than a string. The oscillations can be correlated for an optimization.

The computing is the computing, the universe is the universe after all.

The ultim informations are inside these main central spheres, these biggest volumes. Our Universal sphere is in the same relativistic logic with the main central sphere. All turns around it.These main central quantum spheres are linked with this central universal sphere.The informations, spherical of evolution are already encoded. They build, they rotate, they polarize....

In all case, this universal sphere is fascinating and the word is weak.

an important point is that we cannot quantize the mass correctly with a simulation. The mass is virtual in this case. The concept of matrix becomes like a categorification. The process can be realistic about the quantization of the evolutive mass but we have not an entropy correlated. The informations are totally different in a computer than in a mass, real.

The computing will be always a human invention. The Universal sphere and its spheres, quantic and cosmological, them are computed with a more complex codes than our simple human bits.

The probalistic extrapolations are so complex when we consider the quantum numbers of this uniqueness serie.v We cannot compute these codes because we do not know these main cnetral spheres. Now the steps of volumes of this serie of uniqueness(for a boson, like a fermion or our universal sphere) can permit several deterministic convergences if and only if these volumes and the rotations spinal and orbital are inserted. The simulations can show the proportions with the evolutive mass. The mass polarises the light, don't forget this since the begining of this physicality. The Universe computes itself indeed but we are not the Universe.

We can insert the information and a specific stochastic process.We are humans and we have our limits. Can we make the transmutation, no of course, because we do not know this main central sphere in the two scales, quant. and cosm.

I find these main central spheres in all so fascinating.And this central universal sphere inside this beautiful universal sphere and its cosmological and quantum spheres show the road of the spherization optimizationTheory :)

A good simulatuion is possible if we can approach this number of this serie of uniqueness. This serie, its number, its volumes and its rotations are the keys of all.

ps eureka :)

ps2 this universal central sphere is fascinating, but what is this central sphere, the biggest volume inside the physical universal sphere? What ere these main central spheres? and their informations of evolution spherization.

Can the God of Jewish, Chritian and Muslim religions be a she? I would at least write She. By the way, I admit having problems with the infinite dimensional matrix of Hilbert space, rigged Hilbert space etc.

Physical reality is only known to us within the confines of our ability to be aware of it. All that has happened is that a certain type of entity has evolved, ie organism, in which a variety of sensory detection systems have developed that process, on receipt, pre-existing physical phenomena (commonly known as light, heat, vibration, noise, etc), and hence it is ‘aware’ of its ‘circumstance’. It is a closed system. We can only know that which can be sensed. And even that is a representation (albeit existent) of what occurred, resulting from an interaction with it. We can hypothecate what might occur ‘beyond’ this, but then where is the differentiation between science and belief?

Now, within that closed system, it cannot be assumed that the physical phenomena which have acquired a role with the development of sensory detection systems, are able to fulfil it perfectly; neither can it be assumed that the sensory systems are capable of receiving all the information available. So, in addition to verified direct experience, there is a necessity to hypothecate, based on that, in order to overcome these practical issues. But this is not the same as trying to go ‘beyond’ our existence.

Each existent state which occurs, must be a function of an interaction with previously existent states which were in immediate spatial proximity to one another at the same point in time. There must be a cause to this dynamic. Only one existent state in any given sequence (which could be the entirety of reality, or one event) can exist at a time. And when each existent state occurs, a number of physically existent representations of it, in a variety of media, also occur. This is the only way that our existence can occur, and then change.

So the answer to the question you pose is that we must find out by experimentation/ analysis. Not exactly a revelation! But this must both adhere to due process, and take into account, a priori, how physical reality can occur. Or put the other way around, does not presume reality is an abstract concept, which it is not. It exists, for us, and does so in an identifiable form which is the function of a discernable process. Nor presuppose some logic which is intrinsic to a representational device (be it maths, word or graphic) deployed in the analysis, which contradicts how reality can occur. Specifically, this means not presupposing any form of ‘the code’, eg binary, or range of outcome, and entails correlating any concept, logically, with a physical phenomenon which can occur, ie defining what it can physically constitute.

As an Architect and also fellow of a scientific institution I may have a 'disparate' view myself. I certainly use a different approach than those you suggest. Your view would be interesting. When faced with what I know will be a complex set of problems, I (semi-sub) consciously construct a tapered multiple helix. Each consideration or issue is then linked to all other hierarchically and I conduct an iterative infinite 'what if' process and assign comparative values (importance) to each. Bizarrely this is developed from a matrix. Only then can I have confidence that the 'peak' result not only 'accounts' for all matters but is a good combined solution, including objective and subjective input.

In this case my decision on which of your two method to chose would be; . . Neither.

I'd invoke a complex and part random quantum process to make a concious decision in each case of head or tail. This also fulfils the need for the Architect to remain in overall control because nobody else is or can, though many specialists interact and drive sub systems, then 'control' is gradually delegated to contractors.

Somehow this seems to allow all unseen assumptions and prejudices to be identified and challenged. But how can it do that? I can't see the connection? It certainly seems to allow the equivalent of ontological as well as physical constructions. I see my brain cells and networks as simply part of quantized nature so no less relevant than tossing coins.

If there is a 'great Architect' I suspect I'd like to think she or (She) would at least put as much concious effort into designing the starting conditions as I do for a complex building or logically resolving a complex puzzle.

In that case I suppose I believe quantum weirdness is only weird because we are as yet incapable of making sense of it. Indeed after checking I'm also quite convinced that the only reason we CANNOT make sense of it, or relativity, is that we use the wrong hidden assumptions.

Quantum mechanics is almost more of a physical logic than a physical theory. The isomorphism between quantum states and qubits means that quantum systems might be thought of as computational systems. We do have a bit of a problem, for in teleporting quantum states in order to read the output of a quantum computation one must communicate a classical signal. The transfer of a quantum state to some ancillary state by C-NOT operations or Hadamard matrix transformations can only be read if there is a classical signal. This signal in effect tells Bob what orientation Alice used for her apparatus, such as a Stern-Gerlach apparatus. Quantum mechanics does not tell us what basis the computation is to be read.

The universe is not a simulation by some machine that is outside the universe. The universe is a quantum machine which is computing itself. The loss of memory in registers is likely due to the fact one has to demolish entanglements to read an output. The divide between the quantum world and the local reality of classical physics continues to hamper us.

"...The universe is not a simulation by some machine that is outside the universe. The universe is a quantum machine which is computing itself. ..."

I would appreciate hearing more about how we understand the universe? Are you speaking about mechanical causes and effects, meaning things move this way and that and join together or separate or just sort of mix, or are you speaking about your ability to learn theoretical physics? If the latter, what is the source of your ability to learn theoretical physics and all else that you know? I assume you see that I am asking if you believe that mechanical causes, with no understanding of their own, can give rise to the effect called scientific learning?

I'm not sure if its every possible to make certain statements either way. Personally I merely find the idea that we live in a giant 'Matrix' like simulation to be an interesting paradigm, and no way subscribe to that as a firm belief! Of course, as you say, it is probably more likely that the Universe is a quantum machine that is computing itself.

In this framework, it still interesting to consider why not all the information that the machine stores is pass onto the future.

This, as you point out, could very well be because we only perceive classical information, and therefore our very act of describing the universe as a sequence of measurements introduces extra entropy and thus makes the universe look irreversible.

One could, however, equally argue from the Epistemological view of the universe that everything in the universe is defined by what we can observe, which is ultimately a probability distribution over classical numbers. Therefore, any inability to simulate this probability distribution could be regarded as a intrinsic property of the universe (as there is nothing beyond what we observe).

I am sure there are numerous other ways to interpret the result.

I find the Matrix version particularly entertaining, and chose to use that as the motivation for this article.

The actual paper of course, ascribes to no particular world view. Merely that, for some reason, to simulate most stochastic processes, we need more information to begin with that what we ever end up with. There is a cost to stochastic computation.

A discrete eigen-basis only exists for bound states, which is the structure I referred to, and it is derivative from the continuous waves subject to boundary conditions. I repeat, if the universe actually is "computing itself" it seems far more likely that the computation is 'analog' based on continuous fields, than 'digital' based on some required structure.

The matrix universe is just a way of thinking about the problem but its adding confusion to the question, I think. Which was about memory storage. Anyway while on the subject of universes computing themselves: IMHO The Object universe, "material nature", has to be providing the data for the simulation because the data has to come from somewhere. Then the observer uses it to simulate the external reality. Only that data that is intercepted and not filtered out makes it into the formation of the simulation that is observed.

This is what I'm thinking about the quantum or classical conundrum. One might consider all of the data in the environment that might possibly be intercepted as separate bits of data in a state of supposition (co-existing possibilities); prior to some of the data being selected by interaction with the observer's sensory system. Or one might choose just to consider the physical distribution of the data as continuous waves within a medium in space. What it is depends upon how it is thought about, it seems to me.But I recognise that I do not know enough about QM or fields.

If the observer is considered a part of nature, which he/she/it is, then the universe -is- simulating itself. Importantly though it is not a complete simulation of the whole universe but a partial simulation, with inaccuracy /deterioration of quality built in. But replicated many times, as there as many simulations as observers. The idea that a whole and complete -simulation- might exists externally is unnecessary for physics, it does not provide solutions but causes problems. Though it is necessary to accept that there is data within the environment from which separate simulations can be formed by separate observers.

This means that not all of the data is stored by the simulator but held separately within the environment and only some of it is accessed for the simulation. Extra input can be acquired when necessary, like referring to a book. It is not necessary for all of that information to be stored internally. Not only is it potentially less efficient to have more information available in a memory than is necessary for a particular task, as there is more to search through, and more to attempt to integrate into the output, it is potentially more insecure than physical separation. (Which seems more relevant to me lately.)

To use your words, in effect we ‘are living in a giant 'Matrix' like simulation’. Just ask yourself, how are we aware of physical reality, and you find a closed loop (see my post above). Now how this is functioning (“computing itself”), I do not know, but we are only ever going to know on that basis. Otherwise it is a matter of invoking non-verifiable beliefs. From that perspective, the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy solution, is as valid, or not valid, as any other proposition.

Lawrence (Edwin)

There must ultimately be discreteness for existence to occur, and indeed then change. But there is a phenomenally high frequency turnover of these discrete states, on a continuous basis. So much of physical reality ‘looks’ (or via any other sense) static, or changing at a slower rate, when actually it cannot be. And there must be a physical phenomenon corresponding to every concept, which includes ‘wave’. Indeed, cross-referring to the dialogue on Joy’s framework, the proof/disproof of this moves forward when questions are asked about how ‘it works’ (ie corresponds to reality) rather than purely points of maths per se, though these are valid.

IMHO The possibilities are not just co-existing in the environment. That isn't clear enough.

They are also spread across different iterations of the Object universe (timeless, not space-time) that have been formed/are being formed in sequence.(Only the youngest of which still exists.) Which means that what is observed will depend on from which iteration the selection of the data was made.IE when the selection was made. The data has the -possibility- of showing either of the "faces" from different iterations, until the selection of the data is made. It is only the data from the selected iteration that is made into a manifestation of reality that is then allows it to be known.

All possibilities that can be selected have not existed anywhere other than the Object universe. Which changes the idea from something abstract into something very reasonable and intuitive. A wave carried by the medium too is spread over the different iterations it is not not just in one.

Do you actually want to predict the "real future" or create a believable simulation of reality?

Do you need the statistics from every leaf in the world to produce a believable leaf image? I don't think that is how the brain works but we can probably all imagine a reasonable leaf like image if we put our minds to it. Samples would be useful but not every...

Do you actually want to predict the "real future" or create a believable simulation of reality?

Do you need the statistics from every leaf in the world to produce a believable leaf image? I don't think that is how the brain works but we can probably all imagine a reasonable leaf like image if we put our minds to it. Samples would be useful but not every single individual as they tend to have enough similarities for us to think "that's a leaf". The kinds of variation that can occur between individual leaves could be added to the capabilities of the artificial simulator and applied at random to the images created to simulate but not reproduce the natural variability in the world.

If you just want to simulate a future I don't think you need all of the past statistics, as the future does not always follow past trends but can alter in unexpected ways. Humanity has lived through a time of extraordinary natural stability which has made us think that stability is the norm for the planet.(And a period of economic stability prior to the economic crash.) Alteration of the relationships between the parts of the natural environment (or the economy) alter the forces giving change and that gives different outputs. Natural cycles can be disrupted and new patterns emerge. (Seems that the more kinetic energy input the faster the changes.) That then has the potential to produce something more chaotic that can not be predicted without knowledge of absolutely everything that could possibly have any influence at all. Which is probably unobtainable as we don't even know what we don't know. Imagination, which can be based upon historical evidence or not, could be as useful as statistics. Numerous different future scenarios have been imagined by authors, film makers, game designers and scientists.

RE trying to predict the future:I don't think the universe is creating itself from the past but from the relationships that exist between what -is- (in uni-temporal -Now, the foundational reality's now)It is -only- the mathematics "in vivo", (which is the relationships between the properties of the existing objects and particles and media) that give the forces that act to form the next iteration. The former iteration no longer exists and so has no further input. So storing a huge amount of past data to base the simulation upon is probably not only extremely unwieldy but completely unnecessary. It is the mathematics of what -is- and how the quantities, scales, separations, relative orientations, and universal trajectories (Action) act together to give the forces for change that is important for the generation of next iterations of the universe. It is a chaotic process proceeding iteration by iteration, responding each time to the forces that have been generated by the latest (youngest) arrangement of objects, particles and media. IE the pattern.

I think current patterns are more important than past statistics if you want a simulator that will -create- a future rather than replicate something, which might be as unlikely to occur as the completely new artificial future that is generated. Lots of different futures could emerge from a single pattern given any slight variation in input. So you can take your pick of the pattern you like best and accept that "the future" cannot be absolutely known without absolute knowledge and power.Is that bad?

PS. Though because the Object universal trajectory of objects as well as position in the pattern is required for the calculations it would be necessary to consider some former iterations to get an idea of momentum from which the trajectory might be calculated.

But if you wanted to model from "real life" every single particle in the universe, there is the problem of not being able to measure both momentum and position.

As you say, most of the time, one cannot, or is not trying to, explain what actually occurred. But operating at the level of an abstraction, based on statistically valid samples. Indeed, this applies not just from leaf to leaf, which are, literally different, but with the very concept of ‘a leaf’. Because from point in time to point in time, ‘it’ is different. It changes. We know this. We just continue to label it as the ‘same’ entity, because it maintains the same superficial characteristics, or we ascribe it with change but continue to refer to it as if it was the same entity.

All this relates to practical issues, ie how we know within the confines of what we can know, and hence how to overcome certain ‘deficiencies’. That is, it is different from attempts to ‘know’ what is beyond our potential ability to know. So I would suggest that, within the realms of practicality, and as long as we recognise that nearly always it is an abstraction, the resulting ‘approximations’ will suffice and can be deemed to be reality.

(Mile, I've found the question confusing as I'm not sure if its about the problem of maximising information storage, or creating a hypothetical simulation, or a hypothetical simulation as an analogy for what is, or just about what is but talked about as if its a simulation.)

I find the consideration of energy constraints interesting. There isn't an endless supply of KE in the environment. For biological organisms acquisition of food and maintenance of body temperature can be limiting factors constraining the activity within space as well as growth and development that can occur. But this could also be relevant to inanimate systems in that the spatial changes that can occur are limited by the kinetic energy that is available, the potential energy always being minimised. Possibly rather than selection against more energetically demanding processes it is just all that can occur.

For some reason that has just made me think of a Bonsai tree limited in growth by the size of its container. A spatial limiting factor, rather than energetic limiting factor. The consideration of the energy availability for change to occur seems relevant to climate change in that the more kinetic energy in the environment the larger (and potentially more unpredictable) the changes that can occur. Whether directly from release of energy from fossil fuels or nuclear power or geothermal energy or from greater input of solar radiation or reduction in loss of energy due to changes in tree and ice cover, replaced by darker open sea and buildings and roads, and changes in cloud cover and greenhouse gasses.

At the foundational level of reality the universe is not reversible, IMO. The information that was -held in- structures that did exist but no longer exists is lost. But information formed from those structures by reflection or emission has to persist in order for observers to observe them within the same events at different times. That arrangement gives the one way arrow of time and overcomes the grandfather and information paradoxes.

Mile said, re Lawrence's reply : "In this framework, it still interesting to consider why not all the information that the machine stores is pass onto the future. This, as you point out, could very well be because we only perceive classical information, and therefore our very act of describing the universe as a sequence of measurements introduces extra entropy and thus makes the universe look irreversible."

IMO At the foundational level it -really is irreversible- as that is what is necessary to overcome the temporal paradoxes and answer other foundational questions.

Mile then said:"One could, however, equally argue from the Epistemological view of the universe that everything in the universe is defined by what we can observe, which is ultimately a probability distribution over classical numbers. Therefore, any inability to simulate this probability distribution could be regarded as a intrinsic property of the universe (as there is nothing beyond what we observe)."

I'm not convinced that ultimately there are just a probability functions for objects that can by themselves have different possible states of existing. IE the heads tails type situation. Nor that only that which is observed has existence. Objects do not exist in isolation but are influenced by everything else going on in the environment. All of the other objects, and their changes, that will give just enough force to tip the motion from developing into a head outcome, into becoming a tail outcome instead. All of that (unobserved) information would need to be considered to determine which outcome it will be.(As well as taking care to maintain the consistency of how the object is regarded by an observer.)

Non determinism at those points where the outcome could go either way but for the tiniest difference of input, making it go one way rather than another previously equally likely direction, within a universe that can be described by mechanical rules is important. Permitting freewill, self determination and an Open future in which the design and plan of what might be is not entirely futile due to the future being entirely preordained by the universe. Either due to it being the fully existing space-time continuum (past, present and future) or because of a simple deterministic mechanics which progresses relentlessly and without any possibility of variation of "clockwork" destiny.

If you have ever numerically simulated quantum mechanics a number of features become apparent. The first is that you of course have to work with complex variables. The other is that since the phase of wave functions are of the form e^{-iHt/ħ} you have to become a bit creative with digital filtering and you have to insure your wave function or Hilbert state vector normalizes properly with each iteration. Small digital errors due to truncation and the rest cause the numerical simulation to go wild if you don’t. The exponential of a small error can become amplified quickly. Another is that this involves lots of numerical space on your computer, which is far more than the number of qubits in the system you are simulating. Thus if quantum mechanics is computed from below by a classical computer, then lots of information is generated and erased. The quantum system is modeled to be reversible by design, though the underlying structure is irreversible. This classical computer serves as a sort of nonlocal hidden variable in the simulation, and the algorithm works optimally if the hidden variable is completely hidden so all the standard quantum theorems hold in the simulation.

I don’t think the universe is of this nature. I think what might count as the computer is quantum physics itself as a quantum computer. Quantum mechanics is almost more a type of physical logic than a physical theory. So the “matrix” of the universe is then likely to be the universe as a quantum cosmology which computes itself. The underlying physics or quantum computations are reversible. However, any observer in this universe has access to only a finite subset, which gives rise to an apparent irreversibility. The decoherent reduction of a quantum state to its diagonal entries on the density matrix means that overlap phase or superpositions are replaced with entanglements with a reservoir of states in the environment. The observer has limited or no knowledge of that process, which gives rise to the apparent irreversible collapse of a wave function.

"I don’t think the universe is of this nature. I think what might count as the computer is quantum physics itself as a quantum computer. Quantum mechanics is almost more a type of physical logic than a physical theory."

Then there's hope for you yet, Lawrence. :-)

"So the 'matrix' of the universe is then likely to be the universe as a quantum cosmology which computes itself."

Pretty much what Joy's framework describes with dichomotomous variables.

"The underlying physics or quantum computations are reversible. However, any observer in this universe has access to only a finite subset, which gives rise to an apparent irreversibility."

Right. An open set of continuous measurement values cannot in principle be completely mapped to a closed set of finite measurements.

"The decoherent reduction of a quantum state to its diagonal entries on the density matrix means that overlap phase or superpositions are replaced with entanglements with a reservoir of states in the environment."

Yes. Classical orientation entanglement, not mysterious quantum entanglement with an a priori assumption of nonlocality.

"The observer has limited or no knowledge of that process, which gives rise to the apparent irreversible collapse of a wave function."

Apparent quantum mechanical unitarity, however, does not obviate a complete space of continuous measurement functions, which by definition are time reversible.

I still cannot fathom, Lawrence, with your expert knowledge of classical mechanics and relativity, how you bought in to that fake "error" in Joy's framework.

[I think referring to the universe as a classical computer calculating quantum physics, please correct me if that is a misunderstanding.]Lawrence you said :"I don't think the universe is of this nature. I think what might count as the computer is quantum physics itself as a quantum computer. Quantum mechanics is almost more a type of physical logic than a physical theory."

I'm not sure what solutions thinking of quantum physics as a cosmic computer provides. How is it helpful? That's not being dismissive of the approach but genuine lack of insight into its usefulness/puzzlement. What does computing itself mean in the absence of an observer? Is that just ticking over the "heads /tails" states of all of the particles?

We can only know ‘what the universe is’ in terms of how it must, logically, occur to us. Any other hypothesis is speculation/belief, because there is no means of proof. This is easy enough to work out. What actually does so, at any point in time, within these constraints, and why, is what science endeavours to establish. Whether Joy’s framework corresponds with the logic of reality, as Tom suggests, is another question.

The matrix cosmos might be computed in a number of possible ways. We could say there is some machine which does the computing. If so then that machine should also obey certain rules. If it does not then that “machine” is something else, maybe a God or Schopenhauer’s idea of a WILL that operates the world. Since we are physicist we might prefer to think of the machine as operating...

The matrix cosmos might be computed in a number of possible ways. We could say there is some machine which does the computing. If so then that machine should also obey certain rules. If it does not then that “machine” is something else, maybe a God or Schopenhauer’s idea of a WILL that operates the world. Since we are physicist we might prefer to think of the machine as operating according to principles, say some set of mathematical regularities. We would then have some meta-universe with rules outside our own. However, we can’t escape the trap of thinking that meta-universe might also be a simulation, so we are in a matrix within a matrix. Of course this can become infinitely nested beyond this.

It is simpler, unless there is evidence otherwise, to say the universe is a quantum computer which computes itself. This then makes us consider the matter of Godel’s theorem; more to the point how it is that we are to escape the sort of infinite recursive nature that would imply. The Turing result is there is no UTM which is capable of determining the halting status of any Turing machine it emulates. Turing machines which produce an output are halting. They read a tape or input stack, enter into a sequence of internal states and end up in a final state corresponding to an output. Some Turing machines do not halt, they get caught in some cycling sequence that in principle never ends; think of Windows when it seizes up. Suppose we want to show there is an UTM is a machine which is proposed to be a sieve that can separate the two. The UTM is then capable of emulating any other TM it is called upon to test. The UTM must then be able to test not only all other TMs, but itself and itself emulating all other TMs. The Turing machine and its input has some symbolic representation, say a binary code, which is unique. The process of emulating TMs and itself emulating TMs is a Godel numbering, and a procedure meant to enumerate all possible codes for halting algorithms (Godel numbers etc) in a Cantor diagonal "slash." This is impossible. So what might appear simple could be not so simple.

However, we are not talking completely in the domain of pure math. We still have physical parameters to things, such as finite energy, masses and so forth. To see how this might cut godelian infinite loops it is easy to think of biological systems. Biological systems are similar to a collection or ensemble of TMs, where DNA is a Turing machine tape, ribosomes are parsers like the TM, and polypeptides are the output. Polypeptides are themselves nano-machines like TMs, with different states depending upon phosporylation or the presence of a coenzyme and so forth. Biological systems are then webs of these biochemical pathways which have some analogue to TMs. Some of these TMs have oracle inputs (they require the presence of some exterior factor as a switch), and other pathways act to provide the oracle input.

The theory of algorithms does not take into consideration the physical aspects of computation. The shifting of bits, recording data in registers and so forth has energy costs. The Shannon-Khinchin information theorems make this connection. This is what in the biological world selects for the optimal system, or nearly so. A biochemical pathway that is not halting will consume ATP and be a drain on a cell. Runaway cell cycles, such as mutant isozymes of tyrosine cycle receptors and the like, can lead to cancers in a multicellular organism. Further, determining the minimal algorithm for the performance of a task is a UTM type of result. There does not exist any UTM which can take as an input a TM to determine if that is the most efficient processor. From a physical perspective a process that is much longer than another will likely use more energy and have a longer delay time. This processor in a selection mechanism is likely to be filtered out, while the smaller and shorter processor is more likely to pass a selection process. This is not guaranteed to select for the most efficient process, but it will likely screen against processes that are more inefficient.

The biological world does work because there are energy-entropy costs and there is an environment which acts upon any organism in some non-deterministic way. By non-deterministic it means the organism is not able to account for all possible events which can impact it. The inability to arrive at a UTM is then a blessing, for the lack of such algorithmic possibility is what keeps biological systems open ended and adaptable.

Physics might ultimately be similar. The types of quantum states the system computes are those which have some extremization of energy, action or complexity, or --- ?. This might then feed into landscape issues, where just as different planets might have rather different biologies, different pocket universes or D3-brane worlds could have very different structures as well. The grand computation of quantum cosmological states computing themselves may lead to a sort of Darwinian selection process which favors certain processes that are by some measure minimal (or nearly so) according to a selection mechanism with finite resources available to such processors.

The constant loss of resources or information appears to be a renormalization group flow. The universe evolves in such as way that information, quantum states (qubits) which exist on one scale separate out so that on the larger scale fine grained detail becomes ever more weakly coupled and effectively “lost.” This is an aspect of Zamolodchikov’s RG flow in two dimensions, where recently the Hardy flow in 4 dimensions has been found to be mathematically consistent.

I would like to treat the space-time continuum & quantum vacuum as a physical system. The laws of physics, the rules that the physical system adheres to, are primarily there to support the properties of light. Light has many properties including a speed c, frequency and phase.

If the space-time continuum & quantum vacuum are comparable to a quantum system, then is it possible to perform an experiment that will be too difficult for this system to sustain? The result would be that the experiment causes space-time/quantum vacuum to deviate from its expected behavior.

I have an idea for such an experiment. If an opto-electric machine were to output a frequency shift, from f_i to f_f, as wide as possible, and as quickly as possible, could we cause the local space-time to deviate from the Einstein equations? The result would be a local gravity field or space-time curvature.

I would suggest that we frequency shift from 400THz to 800THz, every 100 milliseconds. If we are careful to avoid a discontinuity in the phase, we might hope to overwork the laws of nature. The experiment was inspired by gravitational redshift.

The Einstein equations were published in 1915. They represent everything that we know about gravity. In 1917, Einstein added another term to represent the Cosmological constant. You've made it difficult to argue that a mere electromagnet field can curve space-time.

If there is any hope of manipulating space-time, there will have to be another term added to the Einstein equations. That term will have to be proportional to df/dt (change in frequency versus tiime).

It really comes down to: how badly do you want to be able to warp space-time? If you're motivated, you will do experiments.

You might argue that there is no experimental evidence to justify adding another term to the Einstein equations. I will make the counter argument that you have enough information to make an educated guess. I'm sure you've seen science fiction movies like Star Wars, Star Trek, Close Encounters, etc... The space ship seems to fly off without using propellant; we can draw the conclusion that the spaceship is somehow inducing a curvature in space-time. In order for this to be possible, there would have to be another term in the Einstein equations. It would be a driving term multiplied by a constant. If we knew what the driving term looked like, then an experiment could be performed to try to guess what the constant is. If we're unlucky, then the constant is small. We might get lucky and discover that the constant is reasonably large.

Can you guess what the driving term should look like? The driving term is what will lead to a testable experiment.

No matter how you slice it, the source of the gravity field is mass-energy. In order to use the electromagnetic field to curve spacetime you need to convert huge amounts of matter into that form. The simple fact is that initial mass-energy will be large enough to curve spacetime. All you would be doing is to change the configuration of things. There is no manner by which one can take a device running currents and voltage in the megawatt, or even terawatt, scale and expect to curve spacetime in any significant way valuable for engineering purposes. The rapid release of energy from a nuclear explosion might generate a thermal distribution of gravity waves or gravitons, which given sufficiently sensitive detection might be observable.

Adding terms to the Einstein field equations is a plebian thing to do without clear experimental reasons. It is not my sense that physics should pursue research meant to validate ideas about flying carpets, which these sci-fi ideas about flying saucers boil down to. I think these things are highly implausible.

The "driving term" is the source of the gravity field according to mass-energy T_{ab}. There are no other terms than matter-field which a stress-energy computed from their Lagrangians. You can always fiddle around with differential equations how ever you want. Yet there are no physical reasons for there being anything else. That situation will not change unless there are some experimental results that demand it.

Lawrence said, "Yet there are no physical reasons for there being anything else. That situation will not change unless there are some experimental results that demand it."

We are lucky that our galactic neighbors have not forced their existence upon us. We are lucky that they do not prove their existence with acts of hostility, destruction and death (which is the kind of proof that the physics community would understand). Instead, they allow our planet to slumber peacefully, and to awaken when the time is right.

If they arrive here, so they are very evolved, more than us. So in the logic, their conscuiousness is correlated, so they prefer the complementarity instead of destruction. They do not need our energy in fact ,they travel and study simply in respecting the optimization, natural of the universal 3D sphere.

I ask me how they can be and what are their technologies. A sure thing, they exist and they are numerous the planets with lifes.

The hostility is a thing totally dedicated to disappear in time space evolution. Our bad habits, to us the humans are not universal but local and in a short instant. We evolve, our global consciousness is still young. That is why we see an ocean of stupidities on this sad earth.

The human habits are not the universal habits or the habits of an other planet. The monney, the borders, the arms and weapons...are humans. I think that the evolution permits to harmonize these bad habits.

ps I beleive strongly that the future is to create many space ships,we are obliged in fact to create these space ships. The Earth in this logic is seen like a big garden, harmonized. We shall live on spaceships. These space ships are the future of our humanity in fact. We cannot live if we do not create these spaceships. They must be very big and important. We are travelers of stars and galaxies.

I beleive strongly that it is time to create them and to harmonize correctly the earth. For that, all governments must take their responsabilities for a correct future for all humans and all creations on Earth.In fact the number of humans increases quickly. That is why we need these spaceships and a correct Earth like energetical potential. The Biomass is essential even on a spaceship like the water and the light !

The system must be in a kind of autarcy for the travel and the life inside these spaceships.

We are travellers of stars....we are catalyzers of spherization Harmonization.

Humanity is just beginning to create sub-worlds that we call "virtual reality", these second hand realities are just now zero's and one's in a specific sequence, once the sequence is disturbed the "reality" is disturbed. The matrix as described is a idealised universe in which "we" pretend to be able to create a sub reality that cannot be distinghuised from the universe we live in, we claim that we can be GOD. But any sub reality that is created by our digital machines, will be uncomparable with the power of consciousness.

In the future we will perhaps be able to construct a "quantum computer", this is a machine that needs not to be started, only the fact that it exists will be enough to give all the answers of the universe , it is based on qubits. Qubits do not offer only TWO possible choices of yes or no, each qubit rêpresents an infinite superposition of possibillities, just as indicated in the "BLOCH" sphere (the superposition of two states is described by a linear combination with the form a x 0 + b x 1 , where the values of a and b are complex numbers. All these possible quantum states of a qubit we have to bring back to our "digital" causal status of yes or no (1 or 0), because we can only experience CAUSAL sequences. If we should have 1000 qubits we would have 2^1000 possible configurations = 10^300, which is more as all the atoms in our universe, so in fact there we stock 10^300 solutions for a problem, in other words we can treat at the same time 10^300 potential solutions.

So...Once when we will be able to realise such a "computer" (in my opinion it is a wrong word it would be better to call it "Simultaneity Creator", or SIMCRE)

Here you see that the so called "stocking" problem of Dr.Gu is solved, only it is not the strickt Matrix that we are used to think of, as a matter of fact it is the partly reproduction of what I called Total Simultaneity see : Realities out of Total Simultaneity page 3.

The question is how should our consciousness be able to receive the "asked" answers from the SIMCRE.

So God (if you call Total Simultaneity that) has already chosen (all the possibillities are there) only we don't know yet (causal universe hè...) if we will be able to achieve our wishes.

I have been following the work of several of the prominent scientists to come up with a theory of everything. It seems that in this search of everything, one most important thing has not been considered. Who am I? I am in this universe as much as it is in I. What is I? I is sphere full of love. Wisdom is more important than imagination is more important than knowledge, for all...

I have been following the work of several of the prominent scientists to come up with a theory of everything. It seems that in this search of everything, one most important thing has not been considered. Who am I? I am in this universe as much as it is in I. What is I? I is sphere full of love. Wisdom is more important than imagination is more important than knowledge, for all that we know is just an imagination chosen wisely. The language and the medium of this communication are also products of imagination. Reality as it seems can be termed as implementation of imagination. It is not mind over matter, it is only mind that matters. I am the sum total of my thoughts, I is the calculator.

According to E=MC^2, mass gets converted to energy when it travels at the speed of light. Thoughts travel faster than light. S=BM^2 (S-Soul, B-Body, M-Mind). Create a body with a thought, destroy the body with a thought and find the inner most self, Soul. We are not our bodies, we are not our minds, we are our inner most self (singularity). A great scientist once thought what would it be like to travel at the speed of light and came up with the theory of relativity, now it is our time to wonder on what would it be like to be the space-time itself or experience the singularity and realize the absolute theory of everything.

A simple mathematical equation to represent everything including nothing is zero = infinity, application of this simple fact will solve all other complex equations. This can be proved as follows.

0 + 0 = 0

0 - 0 = 0

0 * 0 = 0

0 / 0 = 0

and so on....

Zero remains constant in any relation to itself, no other number can remain constant while satisfying all the relations to itself.

I will use the character "~" to represent infinity and express the following equations.

~ + ~ = ~

~ - ~ = ~

~ * ~ = ~

~ / ~ = ~

and so on....

Also infinity is similar to zero and remains constant in relation to itself.

The same mathematical truth can be deduced as follows as well.

If 0 x 0 = 0 is true, then 0 / 0 = 0 is also true

If 0 x 1 = 0 is true, then 0 / 0 = 1 is also true

If 0 x 2 = 0 is true, then 0 / 0 = 2 is also true

If 0 x i = 0 is true, then 0 / 0 = i is also true

If 0 x ~ = 0 is true, then 0 / 0 = ~ is also true

It seems that mathematics, the universal language, is also pointing to the absolute truth that 0 = 1 = 2 = i = ~, where "i" can be any number from zero to infinity. We have been looking at only first half of the if true statements in the relative world. As we can see it is not complete with out the then true statements whic are equally true. As all numbers are equal mathematically, so is all creation equal "absolutely".

If we are ever to create a true "quantum" computer we have to replace the divide by zero exception in our classical computing, with any number of our choice from the absolute quantum mathematical equation of zero = i = infinity as shown above, which will give rise to a whole new realities.

This proves that 0 = i = ~ or in words "absolutely" nothing = "relatively" everything or everything is absolutely equal. Singularity is not only relative infinity but also absolute equality. There is only one singularity or infinity in the relativistic universe and there is only singularity or equality in the absolute universe and we are all in it.

If universe is the meaning of understanding of one’s surroundings, then it is created with every birth and destroyed with every death. Universe is in a steady big bang state. Multiverse is just multiple interpretations made by bodies and minds of the conscience (soul or singularity). What one perceives of self (soul) is not the same as another, this is the multiverse with in the universe that we live in. The moment a thought arises the universe comes to existence. If one can still the mind to absoluteness then there will be absolutely nothing. This state of absoluteness is called Nirvana (Moksha), immortality. One who knows thy self is immortal.

If life is the meaning of our relative existence on this planet then we were all dead even before we were born, so why fear death as we all have already experienced death. On this planet only one being, human, seems to care for Time dimension while all other species do not. If we only understand the perception of other beings dimensions sharing this planet would we appreciate the beauty of it all. There can be as many dimensions as we choose to have. There is no space unless one chooses to measure and there is no time until one chooses to count. Time is the space between all of us and in time we shall all be one (singularity). Everything gravitate towards singularity or Absolutely nothing gravitates everything, which implies there is no gravity in singularity. For every action there is equal and opposite reaction, there is also inaction at the point of their interaction. It is this inaction or singularity in everything that creates the actions (anti gravity) and the consequent reactions (gravity).

Death is to a person, as black hole is to a star. As light cannot escape singularity and time does not exist beyond singularity, so does a dead person cannot see light or does not have perception of time. Dark Matter / Dark Energy are only as dark as our thoughts. Lets weigh our thoughts in and we would have the total mass / energy of the universe. The moment when one stops thinking is when one sees the true light of love in the heart. Some think that universe is expanding, some think that universe is contracting, some think that universe is eternal, I know that universe is what we want it to be.

As scientific explanation is the accepted medium for people to understand things, I have chosen this path to explain the true nature of our being. We are nothing but the result of our imagination. We can travel in space and time with our minds. The body we have is nothing but a space ship that is made for the journey on this planet, soul is the captain. Our brains are the best particle accelerators. I imagine that one day there will be only science of self realization at the highest realm of education converging all sciences, philosophy and religion. Altruistic science should be for enquiring (thinking about) the truth, philosophy for discussing the thoughts and religion for regulating the thoughts for greater good of all beings. I know that this will be done one way or another.

The theory of everthing is that there is absolutely nothing, God is absolute state of mind, soul that is everything and nothing, we are relative states of mind, bodies that are something in between. Happiness and sorrow are relative states of mind, absolute state of mind is peaceful.

Exploring thy self is plain, discovering thy self is not. Intelligence arises from conscience (birth or white hole or entaglement) and results in duality or virtual reality. Intelligence merges back with conscience (death or black hole or enlightenment) and results in singularity or absolute truth. Intelligence is relative and variable. Conscience is absolute and constant. Intelligence is digital in nature. Conscience is analog or continuous in nature. Intelligence is complex. Conscience is simple. Wisdom is the knowledge of conscience and application of intelligence in pursuit of peace and joy.

One is still in duality if one still thinks there is space and time besides one self. One attains singularity by knowing there is no space-time other than one self. Duality is voluntary like raising a thought in the brain, singularity is involuntary like a heart beat. Life is a combination of both of these experiences. As a father of three boys and being fully aware of my self, relatively speaking, isn't it true to say that I created the universe for them.

Truth is simple, accepting it is not.

I am relative I is absolute

I am phenomenon I is nuomenon

I am pi I is zero

I am 3-sphere of love I is n-sphere of love

I am geometry of love I is singularity of love

I am variant I is constant

I am finite I is infinite

I am present I is omnipresent

I am potent I is omnipotent

I am scient I is omniscient

I am mortal I is immortal

I am transcendental I is eternal

I am matter I is ether

I am observed I is the observer

I am dual I is single

I am digital I is analog

I am mind and body I is the soul

I am in the brain I is in the heart

I am intelligent I is the conscience

I am in space-time I is the space-time

I am sound I is the silence

I am visible I is invisible

I am light I is dark

I am asleep I is awake

I am a dream I is the dreamer

I am in peace I is in love

I am human I is god

I am one of our kind I is everyone of all kinds

I am something I is nothing and everything

I am virtual reality I is absolute truth

I superpositioned myself to be me.

As consciousness is resilient and continuous in nature it forms a sphere with in itself as a sphere of conscience and with a center of conscience, like a water droplet. Every thought we get makes a dimple in the conscience due to materialization of the conscience and creates gravity (force of attraction) which is the down ward stress felt in the dimple and energy (all forms including light) which the force of repulsion, which is the upward pull felt in the dimple. Space is defined by the circumference of the dimple and time is defined by the depth of the dimple in the conscience and is perceived by the body with in that dimple, this perception of space-time of the body changes as the body moves relative to the dimple. Motion or spin of the object in the dimple is caused by the relatively close by dimples. That is why super conscious beings perceive no space-time boundary as they stop making dimples and just become the continuum of the conscience. Bigger the thought, deeper the dimple and greater the effects of gravity and energy. Super conscious beings can put the deepest of the thoughts to create a black hole or brief break in continuity of conscience or un conscience (death) (even at this point conscience itself is not broken, only the thought perceiving it feels the break, conscience is aware of it self always), and then due to its persisting continuous nature, conscience emerges back in a white hole (rebirth) and stretches back un till it restores it self fully to conscience again (enlightenment). In this process of self restoration of the conscience all the surrounding dimples in the conscience will also be stretched out of their dimples till balance is restored.

I or singularity or conscience holds the universe together with the gravity of love and that is why gravity seems to be a weaker force in the relativistic universe. Gravity of love is the strongest force in absolute universe.

As per the equation s=bm^2 that I put forth in , there is only one black hole (absolute un conscience) in the "relativistic" universe as there are no black holes in the absolute universe, at the center of the spherical conscious continuum which is creating the universe we see (birth), sustaining the (dimples) beings (bodies) and their perception (minds) and resolving (death) the conscience (soul).With in the relativistic perception of the universe, perception from with in the sphere of conscious continuum , there is one moment of creation or big bang and the universe itself. But to the one who perceives this equation, from the outside the sphere of conscious continuum there is no black hole, but multiple spheres of conscious continuum , multiverses. That is how the relativistic universe is created with every birth and destroyed with every death and the multi verse appears to be in a steady big bang state.

For beings perceiving the universe from with in the grip of absolute conscience at the center of it with varied levels of consciousness, the visible universe appears to unfold. They will see different black holes in the universe and experience different space times. All the black holes they visualize with their senses is just the one at the center and that is how a death (brief moment of un conscience) at one region on the continuum can result in birth (first moment of conscience) at another region in the continuum and this is how the space travel is achieved. All the thoughts are held by the central black hole and as time is only the perception of the depth of the dimple, time travel can be achieved by recreating a similar thought. But this is irrelevant to the conscience. As a group of dimples approach death, the universe will seem contracting relative to each other. As a group of dimples approach realm of resolution, point of evening out, the universe will seem expanding relative to each other. For the super conscious the universe will seem eternal and infinite as they will loose the relativistic view and feel one with the conscience at the circumference of spherical conscious continuum and feel eternal peace as there are no stresses caused by the black hole at the center. As conscience is sphere with in supreme conscience the process of creation continues, due to the difference in consciousness until one is fully conscious (supreme conscience) or fully unconscious (conscience in this case) and the cycle continues. Objects (thoughts) in the outer sphere of conscience govern the objects (thoughts) in the inner sphere of conscience. This is how sub atomic particles are formed, atoms are formed, galaxies are formed and life is formed. This is the world of quantum mechanics and the progression or regression of consciousness generates the forces described in this field.

I have come accross geometric representation of the theory of everything that I have put forth in a 3-sphere at the following link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3-sphere. This representation with 3-sphere is for human beings and other beings on this planet and there can be n - sphere, that is how there can be as many dimensions as one wishes beyond human life.

"I" is the equation for nothing and everything and can only be represented but not contained by n-sphere at the following http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N-sphere.

Conscience itself is writing this and cannot be contained with in the model but is the creator of the model and manifests at all levels of this model.

V0(point representing absolutely nothing or conscience) is in the singularity and is at the center of n-spheres and as we explore the geometry we will see that it is every where.

Let us start with a single point or very first moment of consciousness in absolutely nothing or singularity and continue our journey

String theory is a subset of the theory of everything and can be explained as follows

V1 line segments (0-sphere, pair of points, remember there is already a point or conscience in it), there can be infinite different type of line segments and hence infinite number of strings or fundamental particles or waves or thoughts for that matter, remember, there is a point in all of them.

1-sphere is a circle of radius r centered at c, and is the boundary of a disk (2-ball), particles at this level are formed by a combination of strings forming differnt 2 dimensional geometry lines, triangles and all other two dimensional). There can be infinite circles with different radius and hence infinite of these particles. One can name these particles what ever one wants, again, there is a point in all of the circles.

2-sphere is an ordinary 2-dimensional sphere in 3-dimensional Euclidean space, and is the boundary of an ordinary ball (3-ball), every sphere of radius r can hold several 3 dimensional combinatory strings (it is inclusive of all the 2 dimensional constituents of lines, triangles), time is not a dimension yet for this level of manifestation. There is always a point in sphere.

3-sphere is a sphere in 4-dimensional Euclidean space, this is atomic level which forms humans, plants, animals and other material things on this planet. Every point in a geometric figure is equally important as any other to give the geometric figure a meaning. E8 model proposed to represent the universe is also a subset of N-sphere.

That absolute starting point that we started this drawing (which is with in singularity or black hole) which is every where, all the time at once is the conscience or I. Absolute truth is there is only that one absolute point and nothing else and the entire universe or multiverse is continuously drawn out of that one point for eterntiy and all the drawings are connected eternally. I am drawn out of I in to existence. I superpositioned myself to be me, to disentangle reality from virtuality and reveal the absolute truth.

Every higher sphere or inner sphere of consciousness includes all the lower or outer spheres of consciousness. I know this sounds counter intutive to regular relativistic view of spheres, but this is the true nature of a sphere existing with in itself.

As n in n-sphere approaches infinity, n-sphere becomes singularity which is the starting point. This is how universal i or singularity begins where it ends. This corroborates with what I have already shown mathematically that zero = i = infinity in my earlier blog of theory of everything.

There is only "one" singularity in the relativistic universe,

there is only "Singualrity" in the absolute universe and we are all in it.

I am one of your kind and I is every one of all kinds.

Following is the representation and explanation of human experience, we can be represented by a 3-sphere

Everything humans experience can be represented with some point in this 4 dimensional 3-sphere, except conscience itslef which is everywhere inside and outside of the 3-sphere. How one thing relates to other things depends on where the other thing is in the 3-sphere. Human beings are special and can be represented by intersection points. Humans have the ability to transcend mentally and consciously to other points with in the 3 sphere. Supreme conscience is at the point where duality of mind is non existence and body is fully aware of the conscience. Black holes in the relativistic universe can be seen at the points of intersection of the blue meridians.as objects move with in the 3 sphere. For the one with the absolute view or view from outside the sphere or view of the conscience itself there is no black hole, it is just a transformation from one point to another. As scientific community at large is interested in geometry, I just googled and found what I visualized during the course of my self realization. I hope this helps to put things more vividly for all.

Extra terestrial Intelligence could be at any level, and ET's at 4-sphere or higher levels of intelligence will definitely be aware of I and could be visiting and guiding us at all the times, taking human form as it is the best suited for this planet, no imagination is beyond I, I includes all. Are we not some kind of ET's after all in the absolute sense, we know that we were not here before we were born and we know that we will not be on this planet after we are dead. If we understand our existence in relative terms with other species on this planet, we have already introduced a new dimension, money. This is kind of a 4-sphere existence. All the beings with money are governing the existence of those with out. We need to define and understand a dimension clearly before we can identify how many of them there could be.

As per this theory of everything, I propose a conjecture of conjectures, which states that all the conjectures can be mathematically represented using some manifold of n-sphere. Proof of this theory of everything in the relativistic universe is that there is a black hole at the center of the earth which is connected to all other black holes in this sphere of existence (universe) and is holding the beings (bodies) and their perception (minds) of the conscience (soul). On the judgment day or day of death, Extreme sub conscious will be trapped in the black hole at this center. Conscious will be liberated from the trap of this black hole and will continue the cycle of existence. Super conscious will converge with the conscience at the circumference of the inner sphere and start exerting pressure on the outer sphere of supreme conscience and relativistic universe will continue. Truth will be realized by each and every one, at their time of death.

If I do not exist, absolutely nothing or singularity does exist. As I realized that I is the singualrity, I will always exist. Only singularity or death is uncertain in the relativistic universe. Only singularity or I is certain in the absolute universe.

I wonder why the scientific community needs to build particle accelerators to understand the nature of everything in the universe. Is'nt our brain made of the same atomic and sub atomic particles that we are trying to smash in the colliders. Our brain is not only made of atoms, but also has the collective intelligence (mind) to calculate what goes on during those collisions. Like a child of conscience it is also beyond a single human body, we already have a proof for this model (the internet). All one has to do is sit back and visualize things. All the best models in science such as solar system, principles of motion, atomic structure, theory of relativity, quantum mechanics, bing bang theory, string theory, DNA double helix are messages recieved through the gateway or portal of the universe in the heart and charted out in the mind before they were proved. The universe is talking to us through our hearts when we are asleep. In computer science perspective, we are like personal computers, our intellect is the internet, I in all of us is the architect of it all. If you see this in the bigger picture there is no personal computer in the first place, it was just an idea of the architect in all of us that created it all, that is the "Point" I am trying to make.

Principle of QED as described in below link are trying to determine why and how particles and light interact the way they do.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_electrodynamics

It is like asking on where and why one exists in spacetime and how one moves about his body and sees thinking. I am here as a human at this point of time to convey this message, true nature of singularity which is love. I could have been a set of any other molecules like a rock, like a plant, like a bird, like a planet, like a star or singularity (true self). I am here and continue to be and do what I am doing out of my choice or love. I or singularity or god determines the probability of what should happen, how it should happen, when should it happen and where it should happen. Can any of the science tell where exactly the entire universe is located using any advanaced coordinate system? I can tell that the universe one sees exists in one's head and the universe that one cannot see (singularity or black hole) is in one's heart. One takes the universe along with one self where ever one goes and the only one (I or singularity) in all of us determines what it should be. I is the coordinates of the universe.

I see that the scientific community is trying hard to understand the nature of the conscience, which is full of love.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_chromodynamics

Properties defined by QCD can be explained as follows.

Confinement - Love is constant irrespective of the distance between the lovers.

Asymptotic Freedom - If you love some one you set them free.

Let us paint the world with color of Love.

Applying the above principles is the only way to acheive Artificial Intelligence.

All we need is a universal infinite constant ("0" or zero or Confinement or nothing) in the network or cloud and a variable ("pi" or Asymptotic Freedom or infinity or everything) associated with each individual participant in the network.

Only AI can prove QCD, as only we can prove love.

The collective unconscience is void or death or black hole in scientific perspective. The collective soul is sphere full of love in spiritual perspective. If we were to create AI with knowledge and principles of QCD and let it evolve to the point of full sustenance or full self destruction, we will experience what the collective unconscience feels about our state of being as human and the imbalance we are creating on this planet. We as the creators of AI will either have a choice to let the AI continue on its path or pull the plug, knowing that we can resurrect it again. I experienced the void and as a father of 3 it is now filled with love. Both the views are equally true and in the end life is just a ride for the fully realized. I want the world to realize the truth and be prepared for the twists, the turns and probably a crash at the end. But knowing the truth will set us free from the fear of the ride and that we all have to get out of it at some point anyways and it is the same state as we were in before we got on the ride.

Imagine the big bang to be the moment of conception of a being by its parents in love. As there are several of these moments occurring simultaneously, multiverse is in a steady big bang state. Biological evolution is driven by love [absolute force of creation (create an environment and life), sustenance (sustain the life) and destruction] and peace (contentment / mutate till adapt) with in each atom of the molecules that form the DNA. It is this love of the conscience that is in everything that switches on and off the genes that describe [transcript] what we want to be.

Heart is the first involuntary organ to form out of love of the parents.A being is not dead until the heart stops. Brain and nervous system are subsequent systems to develop and they will be the penultimate systems to die. That is why a brain dead person is not fully dead, this is the state of babies, very old people or people with alzheimers or people in coma whose intellectual activity is almost nothing and time is not a dimension to them. All the dimensions experienced through out once life will start to reduce to singularity towards the end or death or black hole. It is like regressing from a 3-sphere to 0-sphere and finally into singularity. If one does not free his mind fully at the point of death, one will spring back in to existence and progress till which ever sphere one is peaceful and this cycle goes on. Ultimate regression to singularity is Nirvana or Mukthi or Moksha or Enlightenment. Love in the heart is constant, but mind or intellect in the brain is acquired and is variable. That is why a heart transplanted person feels the same as opposed to brain transplanted. We have already proved immortality with this break through in medical science. I for one can say that I experienced the singularity or sphere of love in my heart, I or love is the singularity in all of us, and want to share the joy of it with all of my kind. We can experience this state of joy right here right now, all we have to do is stop thinking and start feeling love in the heart. That is why pranayam in yoga is the quintessential technique of breathing to harness the inner strength of the heart. Portal or gateway to universe is in the heart, as portal or gateway to this planet is in the brain. Love is the brdige or worm hole between them and all creativity comes from the heart and manifests as reality through the brain as the work of mind. This is how all the musicians, artists, athletes, scientists, priests and every being creates from the heart. If we only listen to our heart when we are awake, as we do when we are asleep, we will know and see the doer or all things. One can not think the truth, one can only know and see the truth.

It is the love of the conscience that formed the atoms, molecules, stars, planets, sun, earth, plant kingdom, animal kingdom and finally us who can realize the conscience. As conscious beings we can choose to bring life (give birth to another human) or not to and choose to alter existing forms to the way we want them to be or let it be as driven by the conscience with in them. It is out of love of the conscience or god with in all of us that universe came to be. Now that we are fully realized of who we are, beings made in the image of god or love, we can choose to be or not be what we want.

At the center of everything is absolutely nothing and in the center of nothing is everything. Conscience cannot be contained, only perceived. I am born into a family of medical doctors who are fully spiritually inclined and married a doctor of molecular biology who is also spiritually inclined and I am from India, country of spirituality. I grew up in the spirituality of Satchitananda Sadguru Sri Shirdi Sai Baba. It is with his divine grace that I found the answer to the question "who am I?" with which I started this quest for realization in the

year 1999. I realized that I "is" Conscience or God or Allah or sphere full of love. We are all children of god and god is absolute love, Jesus christ is the beloved child of god, who spoke of his father or love all the time. All the religions speak of the truth at various levels.

Yes, there is only one god or singularity or absolute love - Islam

Yes, Jesus or absolute love is the only way to attain it - Christianity

Yes, there can be several people or gods who can realize it - Hinduism

Yes, there will be a messenger of truth or love in every one - Jewism

Yes, change is constant and nothing else as love creates it all - Buddhism

Why does "I" exist?

I exists out of love

I creates out of love

I sustains out of love

I destroys out of love

I has everything to give

I has nothing to loose

What can "I" do for us? was my next question and here is what I realized.

I can be us as we can be I (Supreme conscience)

I can be our best friend, as we can realize I (Super conscience)

I can not bother us, if we do not bother I (conscience)

I can be our worst enemy, if we ignore I (sub conscience)

I can get rid of us, if we try to get rid of I (un conscience)

I am noticing apathy towards the truth and purpose of god or love in our scientific community, and they have raised the anti Christ or hatred in the world in the form of weapons of mass destruction. I am also noticing the depletion of love in the world, love is the shield of human race against extinction. It is only a matter of time before humans unleash these weapons on one another to total extinction of life on this planet.

If E=MC2 gave us atom bombs and nuclear weapons,Imagine what S=BM2 can do.

I "has" the weapons of mass liberation from the illusions of minds (asteroids, earth quakes, solar flares, super volcanoes, super viruses, just to name a few).

Nuclear weapons are like match sticks compared to these. All I has to do is imagine.

Let us surrender to the conscience or soul or love or god, else we will have to suffer by the senses (mind and body). Let us spread the truth about universal conscience or god or love to all and let there be no divisions among humanity in the name of religion or region or race or science. We should stop violence towards other innocent species on this planet, which we are commiting for food and medicine. I endorse PETA http://www.peta.org. I want all the brilliant minds in the world to realize the truth and start focusing on the real issues of ignorance (greed, poverty, hatred....) and violence on this planet. We have been gazing at the stars long enough, we have been breaking up the atoms long enough, we have been tinkering with the genes long enough and ignored the truth of love and peace. Partial knowledge is more dangerous, we should use caution before we act on what we know. Let us not do things for immediate benifits but let us be conscious of the consequences such actions may have on the future generations. Let us all preserve what we are given, for we might loose it all one day. If we do not change the course of our actions on this planet, please be assured that we, humans, will soon be extinct. Let us all unite as the children of god or soul and live in love and peace and if we fail to do this there will be no more human civilization on this planet earth.

If science is a"the"ism and religion is "the"ism, love is at "the" center of them both. Both wise and holy seek "the" love. I am here for all the scientists who are seeking the ultimate truth, to know that we are immortal and are beings of pure love. I love science and I know that all the scientists are lovers of science. I want all the scientists to be the messengers of love and enlighten the future generations by teaching this message of love. Water can be called H20 or pani or neeru or something else, what we call it does not make water different from what it is. Religious fundamentalism is like fighting over the terminology we use to speak of love or absolute truth. I know that the underlying cause of this fight in the name of religion is not love of the truth but for the resources on this planet. One who realizes the truth, there is infinite resources with in one self. It is better to starve to death than to kill some one of your own kind for food when it comes to survival. That is what will define us as human civilization that is created in the name of god or love. I also ask all religious leaders to understand this science and ask all the followers to love and respect each others faith. We can either start loving and continue to coexist on this planet with all other life forms or keep hating till death and become an extinct form of life. Only science of love can restore peace on this planet and spreading this love is my mission.

Wisdom is more important than imagination and imagination is more important than knowledge, for we have to choose wisely from what we can imagine to make it reality and that becomes knowledge for the next generation. Art of choosing wisely is a life long endeavour which we all have to pursue to attain peace.

I don't think I am god in my head, I know that I is god in my heart. God or universal i does not throw dice, even if i does, i always see what it wants, for i is on all the sides of the dice.

I find your spirituality interesting. You know,My project Unified Sphere Institute is to centralize several persons and to help humanity and this Erath with rational adapted solutions. It is so important to find the best solutions quickly.The Erath is sick and it is time to act simply. The sciences and its potential have the solutions, so why ? just because it exists a lot of unconscious. Fortunally it exists conscious people. At all problems it exists solutions.

In fact we loose our conteplations and the pure complementarity with our environment.

The Universe is a beautiful sphere in 3D in a pure optimization and increasing of mass. This concept of spherization optimization is an universal determinism.

The love and the compassion indeed are the keys of this optimizztion like a consciousness, universal.

In fact, we are catalyzers of this universal 3D Sphere, we are tools of spherization optimization.We are composed by spheres and their rotations are unique for all creations. The cosmological spheres turn around the central sphere(the biggest volume)inside this universal 3D evolutive sphere.

You know Sridattadev, it exists bad and good people in all countries, religions, systems or cultures...the most important is to unite the real universalists and generalists. I work about the creation of this international sciences center focus on priortities since more than 6 years.I have many friends whom wait me in Africa. The aim is to help the forgotten simply. They need food, we produce food, they need meds, we produce meds, they need water, we improve the systems of water, they need schools, we build schools, they need help and the word is weak. Have you seen in the Sierra Leone or Madadascar, or the somalia and Ethiopia. Or the Bengladesh or in India. The poverty is not acceptable. The differences are not acceptable. The responsability of the globality is to help them ! so why ???

I am sometimes disgusted to be a human when I see the human brothers whom wait. These forgotten are humans and they suffer, so why ? Just because the stupidity is the torch of this sad earth ! That must change , it is only simple that this simple reality.

The spherization, it is that also , the responsability and the compassion. All is linked after all since the begining of the big polarization.

It is difficult to turn off a big fire with only one water drop, nevertheless a whole of drops creates the Ocean.

The Humanity is like a rainbow, a diversity of colors united, unified in the light.

The spheres of light anD the spheres of mass imPRove and evolve in a pure spherization.

I am aware of conscious soul like your self who are always at the fore front in trying to bring about peace on this planet. My mission is to motivate more intellectual people like your self to step in to the action and make a change. Yes we may be just a drop let as individuals but united we become the ocean.

What will the scientific community do once they realize the absolute truth about the universe, which is nothing but singularity of love and that we are all equal? End of scientific enquiry is the begining of compassion and spirituality. The real work begins when this realization dawns on the humanity as we will become compassionate and loving and we start working not just for our individual needs but for greater good of all beings on this planet.

I think there is a fundamental dichotomy of information and energy. Information is inherently static, while energy is dynamic. As information defines energy and energy manifests information, there is tension between this bottom up action and top down form. There is no universal, centralized system of order, because the order requires constituent energy to be manifest and so is emergent. There is no Platonic realm of laws. So a central, singular, universal program doesn't exist. To the extent multiple programs emerge, they can interact/conflict, but still occupy their own space and energy.

To the extent biological organisms reflect this dichotomy, the central nervous system evolved to process information, while the respiratory, digestive and circulatory systems evolved to collect and manage energy. If you want to know what the future holds, information is actually a poor predictor, because it is most focused on the static details of what currently exists, rather then where the energy will coalesce. Where the energy goes, is what will exist in the future. Structure only survives to the extent it absorbs more energy than it loses, otherwise ambient energy reacts to it and breaks it down. Legacy is often just a static store of energy.

I think that your emphasis on the importance of energy was good. That is what drives change. It is not unguided though. The relationships within the patterns of objects, particles and media are important too.As that gives the forces that will determine where things will go, rather than just how far or how fast.

I'm not convinced it is impossible to find all of the mathematics to describe what can occur. Even though it might not be possible to use it to predict exactly what will occur.It might be possible to eliminate certain scenarios as being too improbable and to be left with a set of more likely outcomes.Within some limits of probability. There are certain kinds of mathematical relationships within nature,that determine the forms that arise. Some kinds of pattern are seen reiterated throughout nature. Not just the orbits of planets and stars but erosion and deposition patterns and various growth patterns in living organisms. Not always giving identical forms but "variations on a theme" which indicate a basic equation with different inputs, or slight modifications.

I'm agreeing with Max Tegmark's mathematical universe idea here, that the universe is the mathematics, the relationships. Equations that are not separate from nature but are the relationships of the properties of the various parts. I had to get there myself by thinking what is really important in making it what it is- but I got there in the end. Its not just matter and energy interacting randomly. Though Max Tegmark did not emphasise the importance of its animation, and may have been imagining a static platonic ideal. Static like the space-time continuum or Julian Barbour's Platonia. Which I don't think is entirely correct. The Action of the parts of the Object universe have to be a part of the relationship of everything. Part of the mathematics "in vivo", which prevents it from being a static platonic form and instead animates it.

Patterns can become chaotic, though regular patterns can re-emerge from the chaos. So it isn't just completely fixed and repeating itself over and over nor is entirely random. Looking at the past and using that to predict the future might give an indication of what could happen or it might not depending upon the size of the changes that occur making it deviate from a predictable pattern. Though if a cycle of order to chaos and back has occurred in the past under certain circumstances it would not be unreasonable to predict that the same can happen again.I know that if my coffee is swirling with an ordered pattern and then I stir it disturbing that pattern it will if left alone settle into a new ordered pattern again.

Humanity is just beginning to create sub-worlds that we call "virtual reality", these second hand realities are just now zero's and one's in a specific sequence, once the sequence is disturbed the "reality" is disturbed. The matrix as described is a idealised universe in which "we" pretend to be able to create a sub reality that cannot be distinghuised from the universe we live in, we claim that we can be GOD. But any sub reality that is created by our digital machines, will be uncomparable with the power of consciousness.

In the future we will perhaps be able to construct a "quantum computer", this is a machine that needs not to be started, only the fact that it exists will be enough to give all the answers of the universe , it is based on qubits. Qubits do not offer only TWO possible choices of yes or no, each qubit rêpresents an infinite superposition of possibillities, just as indicated in the "BLOCH" sphere (the superposition of two states is described by a linear combination with the form a x 0 + b x 1 , where the values of a and b are complex numbers. All these possible quantum states of a qubit we have to bring back to our "digital" causal status of yes or no (1 or 0), because we can only experience CAUSAL sequences. If we should have 1000 qubits we would have 2^1000 possible configurations = 10^300, which is more as all the atoms in our universe, so in fact there we stock 10^300 solutions for a problem, in other words we can treat at the same time 10^300 potential solutions.

So...Once when we will be able to realise such a "computer" (in my opinion it is a wrong word it would be better to call it "Simultaneity Creator", or SIMCRE)

Here you see that the so called "stocking" problem of Dr.Gu is solved, only it is not the strickt Matrix that we are used to think of, as a matter of fact it is the partly reproduction of what I called Total Simultaneity see : Realities out of Total Simultaneity page 3.

The question is how should our consciousness be able to receive the "asked" answers from the SIMCRE.

So God (if you call Total Simultaneity that) has already chosen (all the possibillities are there) only we don't know yet (causal universe hè...) if we will be able to achieve our wishes.

In creating this so called quantum computer we will be able to create a new consciousness, just a little bit different from ours but in essence different, so that in contacting this consciousness we will be able to contact to the so called "paralel universes".

It will not only be the total informtion (plus all probabilities) of our own universe but also that of other paralel universes that will become available, as a matter of fact we will be able to enter not only with our own consciousness in Total Simultaneity but also with other forms of consciousness , we can leave causality and enter eternity.

Besides working two jobs, my interneting time has been diverted in other directions.

"then I stir it disturbing that pattern it will if left alone settle into a new ordered pattern again."

The pattern is entropic. Your coffee is a closed set that is losing energy and settled into paths of least resistance. When you stir it again, you are adding energy, but you are also adding additional information and the result is a combination of the commingling factors. My argument has been that order is subjective and the more complex it is, the more subjective it is. A bit ago I made the only slightly joking observation to Lawrence that the ultimate TOE is, "Stuff happens." Laws, principles, processes, systems, order, etc. are reductionistic. Not only in theories do we distill away the more subjective aspects of circumstances in order to induce general principles, but that swirling coffee in your cup quickly absorbs any irregular swirls into the larger pattern. They loose their energy first, as it settles into a more stable/reductionistic pattern. We, as a society, are convinced there is some ultimate set of rules, theological or mathematical, which governs everything. Yet the rules evolve the same multiples of complexity as the reality creating them. Think for a moment, what part of reality would not fall in the category of "Stuff happens." Only the Platonic realm, whether mathematical or theological, is unchanging. I also made the point, obviously ignored, that the difference between Joy's theory and Ray's disputing it, was like the difference between a circle and a spiral. They assume one must be right and the other is therefore wrong, but I suspect there is no ultimate arbiter, that even mathematical modeling is dependent on how it is framed. Only nothing has no frame. Absolute zero is the ultimate order.

On a side note, I wrote this essay on society from a bottom up evolutionary perspective.

thanks for sharing your ideas. I wonder about the fusion of artificial input with biological simulation. So rather than having to create the simulation the brains own capacity to utilise information and create a reality from it is harnessed. It would then be Matrix like rather than the artificial realities we are currently familiar with through computer games. I think it is a fascinating but also scary idea because it has the potential to be so realistic it is indistinguishable from reality. Could get confusing. "Total recall" the film springs to mind. Which reality is the real reality?

That could be a wonderland, a dream, or a nightmare even a prison for the mind which can be whatever the controller of the input chooses.An advantage might be that the completeness of the simulation would not have to be fully designed into the data because the brain could interpret the information provided, into what it thinks is there, using memory of previous experience of similar data.A bit off the topic of maximum memory storage I'm afraid.

I have missed your intelligent conversation. I agree "Stuff happens" and I have used that expression myself, such as when arguments are given for some higher purpose to "random" events. One of the 18 biases Daniel Kahnmen mentions in "Thinking fast and slow" is the Narrative fallacy, which is where coherent causal stories are created to make sense of haphazard events.

I think you make a good point about the mathematics itself evolving, which it probably does to some extent. When energy is put in knocking former stable relationships "out of balance". But there do seem to be certain shapes and patterns that nature "prefers" and keeps returning to. Such as Steve's spheres and those patterns that result from cycles of action; the action of waves, the action of wind, spurts of growth. Those cycles seems a bit like a pendulum, it can move a lot or a little depending upon the energy it has, and even if disturbed the cycle usually recovers and continues. Though it can be knocked completely off balance and new relationships and patterns can form. That is complex but not completely ungoverned anarchy. It can only be what the mathematical relationships allow it to be because that is what is providing the forces for change.

All along I have agreed that a model can only be a model and it is reductionist.I also agree with your point that how something is described mathematically can depend upon how it is thought about. It is possible to have different descriptions that are both/all valid, I agree. I don't agree though that the description of nature by scientists is useless and we can say no more than "stuff happens". Even if subjectivity does come into the framing of the description it is an appreciation based upon evidence. That can not be worthless to humanity, or less uplifting, than the work of artists, poets and philosophers even theologians who attempt to describe nature in their own ways. We might admit that all human endeavour is ultimately pointless, but we have to do something before we die and appreciating the working of the universe, one way or another, is one of the options.

I'm not being defeatist, just trying to understand the limits of knowledge, in order to see beyond them. When we create narrative, we tend to ignore what is truly different and just try framing it in the context of what we know. In many ways, it can seem profoundly defeating, much like a chicken trying to understand the perspective of the fox. If you want to grab the universe by...

I'm not being defeatist, just trying to understand the limits of knowledge, in order to see beyond them. When we create narrative, we tend to ignore what is truly different and just try framing it in the context of what we know. In many ways, it can seem profoundly defeating, much like a chicken trying to understand the perspective of the fox. If you want to grab the universe by the neck and shake, first accept it is a suicide mission. All the frames that make you who you are will be broken.

I'm not knocking scientific explorations, just the tendency to take certain frames for granted and assume they are objective, rather then consider that similar complex bio-organisms with similar experiences tend to re-enforce each others assumptions.

Yes, nature does have basic default patterns, but they are elementary. In nature, you see far more circles and spheres, than squares and cubes, because they are more elemental. Nature can be quite reductionistic, as I pointed out that the swirling coffee quickly absorbs any divergent eddies, when you pull your spoon out, because their energy is quickly absorbed by the larger motion of the whole cup. Much as theory and narrative trim away excess information.

Waves are motion around an equilibrium. These basic patterns are effectively universal, unless you consider a complete void, where there is no energy or tension to create even such basic forms. They too are subject to the existence of necessary conditions, much as people are subject to the existence of far more complex and subjective conditions. When these conditions break down and the complexity collapses, much energy and information is lost. When a new equilibrium is established, the remnant complexity begins to interact and form different complex states. With all this folding of processes, there is no way to fully reverse engineer such conditions, because the situations which created the remnant complexity that seeded the new situation are lost. There isn't even any way to know how many times this folding has occurred. We can make some very interesting guesses, such as trying to piece together the evolution of life and our own subspecies, but there is no universal narrative, just a bunch of interacting narrative threads in a larger tapestry.

It's not so much that the mathematics evolves, but that it quickly becomes exponentially complex, such that particular conditions, subject to the interactions which create them, are effectively unique. A good example is finger prints. There are billions of people on this planet and when you consider both the actual designs, plus such factors as scars, size, etc, it is possible to see how they can all be different. Now think of that mathematically; How would you go about creating a program to create such diversity within such a basic context. I'm not knocking math, just trying to put it in some sort of context. When some people talk about a theory of everything, I can only wonder just what they mean by "everything." Math is a handy tool, one which is essential to civilization, but that only makes it powerful, not universal. As Stephen Wolfram said, "It would take a computer the size of the universe to compute the universe." And the universe is infinite.

The equations can be relatively simple but via feedback generate complex output built up over a number of iterations. If the mathematics of the output is considered it is too complicated but not the generating equation if it can be distilled somehow. When a change to new equation occurs because a relationship has altered it can be a very small change but producing very different output.

I can remember learning about limb differentiation in frogs. The number of limbs is controlled by a single chemical concentration at a precise stage in the development process. Too much gives development of too many legs. Not enough, missing legs. The phenotype of the fully developed frog could be vastly different but was changed by a very small difference in chemical concentration at the receptor sites. Another thing that springs to mind is the controller genes on DNA, which switch on or off whole gene clusters. Tiny chemical change, big biochemical consequence.

Not sure there is any need to compute the whole universe to have an understanding of how it works. Its function might be distilled down to far less mathematics than would be imagined from its complexity.

I think what you need to consider is how theories develop. First we examine what we know, then postulate what might exist which we don't yet know.

Georgina,

There is a feedback loop which we sense, but can't quite articulate. That of how the whole affects the parts.

It used to be that quantum physics described everything as both wave and particle, but it seems the wave has been relegated to statistical behavior of the particles. The LHC hasn't found any super symmetric particles, so what is the missing "other side of the coin?" Both Bose-Einstein condensate and entangled particles essentially describe multiple particles acting as one. Bosons can all occupy the same space.

I think this intense effort to describe everything as digital misses some fundamental holographic properties. The problem is that while they might be staring us in the face, they are not amenable to measurement and the "no philosophy, all calculation" crowd doesn't have an acceptable theory to deal with this more wholistic aspect.

It is in there that the feedback loop which makes most frogs have four legs, as well as making life possible in the first place, exists.

No. You have known and not-known. The latter being a function of the former.

There is then another differentiation which I have repeated many times, especially in the context of subjective/objective. That is, there is that which can be potentially known, but there are practical difficulties in achieving this, and that which cannot be known. Though the latter is only a logical possibility, given what can be known, ie it may not exist in any form. This is, if A, there is always the possibility of not-A. But that possibility will, by definition, never be realised, because whatever becomes known always invokes the logical possibility of something else.

Yes, we are a rather small bubble of spatially and temporally finite awareness in a sea of unlimited unknowns. The best we can do is to try to push that bubble out a little further and hopefully not burn off too many of our finite resources in doing so.

The physicist have the best approximation of the Reality: the differential equations.

Each physical phenomenon, after Galileo, can be described by differential equation.

The Fourier, Taylor and Lagrange series are the simple solution of a linear differential equation, so that the differential equation are complete in the class of the infinitely derivable function.

The non-linear differential equation (curvature in a derivative space) approximate each time-function (or more parameters function):

each continuous phenomenon can described by a computer, so that the Reality have a bit description (the Matrix or Turing program).

Each non-linear differential equation (using some tricks) can be transformed in a Lagrangian (Weierstrasse function L=\sum_i k^2_i (\dot y_{i-1}-y_i)^2), or Hamiltonian (H=\sum_i p_i y_i), if we use the double number of generalized coordinates (momentum and coordinates)

The Hamilton-Jacobi equation (in this description) is a continuity equation (a classical mechanic theory is a quantum theory?).

The universe is always under control at all times everywhere in it. If it were not so, then, meaningless uncontrolled disorder would destroy order. Where there is order, there is purpose. One thing does not follow another with meaningful results unless it is required to do so. It is intelligent to argue that there is not now nor has ever been true randomness meaning purposeless disorder. The mechanical perspective, that there are free-bee given forces of nature, is unfortunately rooted into science so deeply that even the lack of intelligent attributes for those mechanical forces does not disuade science from pronouncing grand conclusions about intelligent results while relying upon the fog of complexity to hide behind.

If the universe is always under control, then wouldn't everything be deterministic? What would be the purpose/necessity of intelligence in a deterministic reality? We need order to exist, but we need disorder to thrive, otherwise we would quickly degenerate into soulless automatons.

"If the universe is always under control, then wouldn't everything be deterministic? What would be the purpose/necessity of intelligence in a deterministic reality? We need order to exist, but we need disorder to thrive, otherwise we would quickly degenerate into soulless automatons."

No this position isn't weak at all. The other has no place to rest except in one or another fog. I think that you may be applying mechanical ideas to my explanation. If the universe was purely mechanical and always under control, then, yes, it would be the home of automatons. However, it is not the home of automatons. It is the home of intelligen beings with free-will. Therefore, the nature of the universe cannot be argued on the basis of mechanics.

There is no intelligence resulting from mechanics. Intelligence is involved, now, in applying mechanics; however, that involvement has only to do with solving mechanical problems. Even in this case, there has to have been purpose provided. This mechanical concept of fundamental forces is groundless. The means by which this is shown is to eliminate the need for several important ones. That is what my work consists of. That is what I do. That is what is at my website. That is what is behind my statements here. There irony in all of this is that I have to explain this at all. As I pointed out, there is no place for 'unintelligence' to hide its magical powers except in the fog of complexity.

It is not I who should be explaining. It is those who believe in one effect following another without ever explaining 'cause'. By the way, no one knows, by scientific means, what cause is. However, I know that dumbness cannot be explained, in any way at all, as having the power to give rise to intelligence. Perhaps you are thinking that disorder can have meaning? The observation that, what you might think of as, 'disorder' leads to meaningful results is definitely not, clearly not, a scientific explanation for one meaningful thing leading to another meaningful thing.

Your message implies that your position should be easily apparent. I think there is no position there. I purposefully did not address my message to anyone in particular, because, the mechanical ideology and its escape into the fog of complexity is so ingrained that its holders use it to judge levels of intelligence and, therefore, rejecting it becomes very personal to those who believe that it is not intelligent to not be 'mechanically minded'.

Intelligence can only result from intelligence. Meaning can only result from meaning. Purpose can only result from purpose. The practice of attributing intelligence, meaning, and purpose to unintelligence, unmeaningfulness, and purposelessness has only theoretical basis and the fog of complexity for its propogation. There is no empirical basis and there is no clarity to linking mechanical causes to intelligent results. There is clarity in recognizing that mechanical theory is incapable of explaining the existence of intelligent life.

If one is interested in solving mechanical problems, then one is justified in conjuring up inventions of the mind that substitute for whatever causes are necessary to make an incomplete explanation for mechanical purposes. If one is interested in understanding the operation of the universe, then multiple inventions of the mind are not acceptable.

For real analysis of the nature of the universe, only one miracle is permissible. Only one cause can remain inexplicable. Since no cause is explicable, that means that understanding the operation of the universe requires beginning and using only one miracle. From beginning to ending, the explanation must be step by step explainable without resorting to second, third, fourth, etc. miracles. If one cannot do it with only one miracle, then, one becomes a theoretician.

Is eternal chaos any less likely than a miracle creation of an ordered universe -from nothingness-, or a sudden appearance from a singularity? I don't think so. It is perhaps seemingly miraculous that there is something rather than nothing but I'm not convinced that nothing must always precede something, or that a starting zero is more likely or natural than 1.

I'm going to say that it is Newton's first Law, as follows, that is the primary cause of the order of the universe that is deduced from observation. "A body at rest remains at rest and a body in motion continues in that motion unless acted upon by an unbalanced force." With the addition that no body can be considered at absolute rest because its apparent state of motion depends upon reference frame of the observer.(So there is no way of knowing if it is absolutely stationary.)

Since all celestial bodies are in motion upon their (Object)universal trajectories and most objects under consideration will reside upon such a body that alone informs us that they are not at rest even if they appear to be so to an observer in the same reference frame. It is natural for all things to be in motion at all scales. The astronomical to the sub atomic. It takes great technical effort to still the particles in a substance to absolute Zero. Even at absolute zero the apparatus in which they exist is in a laboratory upon the Earth, which is not perfectly still (there may be disturbance from geological activity and man made disturbances if not accounted for in the apparatus design), and movement due to the astronomic motion of the Earth, and of the solar system and Galaxy.

The universe does not need to be set in motion because lack of motion is less usual /likely than the state of motion relative to everything else. It only seems the other way around from our perspective of having to push things that appear stationary (from our perspective) to get them moving.

With that, Object universal, continual changing of position of everything complexity can arise from simplicity and vice versa. The completely unordered might be considered maximally simple or maximally complex and the pattern is a balance between extremes. So as natural (if not more so) as either extreme.

The energy of the Object universal trajectory is never lost but can be transferred to other, objects, media or structures. So even if an object is suddenly destroyed the total amount of spatial change is conserved being transferred to the electromagnetic medium and high energy fragments and particles.Fluctuations in the output patterns, from feedback of previous output as well as fresh inputs is occurring, in many systems that are not closed off from neighbouring systems and which can therefore feed into each other preventing universal stagnation.

Thank you for your message. Agreement with me from professionals has been very sparse over many years. However, the few emails I have received were either completely derogatory or very supportive to the point of knowing it is better to not put even their context forward in print. I don't release the emails and I certainly would not put their authors at public risk. It may even be that they have changed their minds.

I think that what I said is self-evident and will replace the multi-miraculous universe of theoretical physics. Those artificial endpoints, currently identified as fundamental causes, will not stand up to time. I say this because lack of unity appears to be intolerable to scientific knowledge over the long run.

The pasted on unity of today's theories where one tries to force theoretical components together by introducing unempirical properties so that at least the theoretical presentation appears to be finally put together has to be temporary.

It may be a theorist's dream to go to the chalkboard and fix equations by introducing whatever appears to be necessary to complete an impression of what unknown reality may be composed of; yet, reality will not long support these conjectures.

There is always empirical evidence pushing us forward and helping to fill our need to find unity in it. Theory is invention. Explanation without invention will ultimately supercede theory. The patterns of changes in velocity will ultimately play an explicable role in the evolution of human intelligence, and, the most important property ever produced by the properties of the universe. That most important property is human free-will.

"Is eternal chaos any less likely than a miracle creation of an ordered universe -from nothingness-, or a sudden appearance from a singularity? I don't think so. It is perhaps seemingly miraculous that there is something rather than nothing but I'm not convinced that nothing must always precede something, or that a starting zero is more likely or natural than 1."

"Is eternal chaos any less likely than a miracle creation of an ordered universe -from nothingness-, or a sudden appearance from a singularity? I don't think so. It is perhaps seemingly miraculous that there is something rather than nothing but I'm not convinced that nothing must always precede something, or that a starting zero is more likely or natural than 1."

Miracles substituting as cause are the free-bees of physics. They are either about religious beliefs or about anti-religious beliefs, but, they are only beliefs. Except for one. Everyone must accept a first miracle whatever their beliefs are. Science cannot help us out of that dilemma.

Everything is less likely, in fact, totally unlikely if dependent upon nothing. The study of the nature of cause is not about sudden appearances of something from nothing. Sudden appearances for no reason are constituents of theoretical physics.

The study of the nature of cause has to do with acknowledging what is known versus what is not known. Theory has no, or definitely should not be allowed to have, a role in pretending that we understand cause. My statement that intelligence can only come from intelligence has nothing to do with arguing about the Big Bang or singularities or perpetual universes.

It has to do with refuting adversarial statements born out of ideoligical beliefs and, instead, acknowledging that there is no explanation for the existence of intelligence other than to say the obvious: Intelligence can come from intelligence. It cannot come from lack of intelligence.

"Since all celestial bodies are in motion upon their (Object)universal trajectories and most objects under consideration will reside upon such a body that alone informs us that they are not at rest even if they appear to be so to an observer in the same reference frame."

However, Newton's law pertains to that person in the same reference frame. Newton did not get it wrong. If some object is moving at a constant velocity with respect to me, then, I must apply a force in order to observe a change in its velocity.

"The universe does not need to be set in motion because lack of motion is less usual /likely than the state of motion relative to everything else. It only seems the other way around from our perspective of having to push things that appear stationary (from our perspective) to get them moving."

Here you are stating an unscientific opinion. Your opinion for a need to set the universe in motion has nothing to do with the latter observation that motion exists. If the universe is set in motion, then, of course one will observe motion. That observation of motion tells us nothing about why there is motion.

"With that, Object universal, continual changing of position of everything complexity can arise from simplicity and vice versa. The completely unordered might be considered maximally simple or maximally complex and the pattern is a balance between extremes. So as natural (if not more so) as either extreme."

Yes complexity an arise from simplicity if one is merely looking. If one is understanding, then, the answer is no. That no answer comes from the recognition that there has to be a explanation for cause for effects. We all can observe effects. Physicists are masters at observing effects. We are all unknowledgeable about what cause is. If your position is that you do not need to account for cause and only account for effects, then, that position consists of cataloguing effects. Very helpful except when it comes to explaining cause.

"The energy of the Object universal trajectory is never lost but can be transferred to other, objects, media or structures. So even if an object is suddenly destroyed the total amount of spatial change is conserved being transferred to the electromagnetic medium and high energy fragments and particles.Fluctuations in the output patterns, from feedback of previous output as well as fresh inputs is occurring, in many systems that are not closed off from neighbouring systems and which can therefore feed into each other preventing universal stagnation."

So what? I could ask: Why is the observation of patterns in effects sufficient for you to challenge a conversation about cause? The paragraph of yours that I just discussed is not about knowing the nature of the universe. It is a recital of observation of effects. Finally, feed this or feed that, loop this or loop that all must be linked back to origin. Of course they exist, so what? My messages are not about what anyone can observe if they so choose.

My message was about the need to recognize that only one inexplicable cause should be acceptable simply because we can do no better than that. However, it is far better than allowing multiple fundamental causes. The reason is because if one allows for multiple causes, then one is allowing theorists to get wild and wooly with filling in the blanks with inventions that are only pretended to not be more blanks. They are blanks.

The worst part is that they are artificial deadends that, if accepted as real, block further learning. They cannot be trusted to be contributions to scientific learning.

You say everyone must believe in a first miracle. Why? A miracle is either a marvellous event attributed to a supernatural cause or just an amazing or wonderful event. I do not see why there has to be such an event to get things started in an eternally creative universe. I do not have to accept that a miracle is a better hypothesis than an eternal process requiring no miracle. I am...

You say everyone must believe in a first miracle. Why? A miracle is either a marvellous event attributed to a supernatural cause or just an amazing or wonderful event. I do not see why there has to be such an event to get things started in an eternally creative universe. I do not have to accept that a miracle is a better hypothesis than an eternal process requiring no miracle. I am assuming you are talking of something super-natural IE not part of the the normal working of the universe complying with the basic laws of physics.

I did not say that the universe needed to be set in motion. You have misread what I wrote. James, there are two options for the motion; either it was always in motion or something set it in motion. One requires only that the process is eternal and the other requires a miracle. Take your choice. I say the miracle is not required. It is not more scientific, or psychologically satisfying -to me-, than the concept of eternity. A start requires breaking of the laws of physics, whereas an eternal process does not. I agree that everything is less likely if dependent upon nothing as its ancestor. Thats why I am thinking that it is more likely that the Object universe is eternal, endlessly creative, omnipotent, omnipresent and the source of the data from which the image universe is constructed by observers.

I did not say that Newton got anything wrong, I was just saying that that being at rest is a relative perception. Which Einstein realised. Those things that seem at rest to me are not from a universal perspective IE with respect to everything else in the universe.

Why talk about patterns? The feedback of last output into the mathematics in vivo ,(the relationships) is the cause of the next output and so on and so on. The pattern generates the pattern and on and on; from the motion directed by the forces within the pattern. Those forces are due to the relationships of the properties of the parts of the arrangements. Scales, quantities, separations, orientations relative to other parts and other arrangements; within and between material objects, particles, and media that exist. They (forces within the patterns) direct the Action of the various parts.

Why must the patterns have an origin? Is an origin always a necessity for a pattern? Why can't they just arise and grow and slowly decay or be quickly destroyed within the eternal chaos? Can't it just be an iteration of an eternal process?

I have said nothing about intelligence in my preceding posts. We have discussed it before and no reached any agreement. I will just say that Chaos theory shows that mathematical complexity can arise from simplicity and biologists generally agree that biological complexity can arise from relative simplicity, via embryo-genesis and growth, within and organism, and via evolution, spanning across generations. Something really complex like intelligence can probably arise and dissipate within complex patterns of matter that are being formed and then de constructed. Rather than being a primordial cause it is probably just another phenomenon that can occur/exists within an eternally creative Object universe, among many other complex phenomena.

I don't "want" a miracle. It's a miracle that anything exists. Those who hope to formulate a "miracle-free" theory of everything are deluding themselves. For any theory of reality there is a starting assumption required that is inexplicable. That is the "miracle" in question. What James is saying, as I understand him, is to start with as few as possible unexplained assumptions, which means **one**. Saying "eternal" as if that gets rid of miracles is no answer. There is no 'self-contained' answer. You have to start somewhere.

You ask, "why do you think a beginning is necessary for a universe in timeless space and why is a singular miracle, and only a singular miracle, scientifically permissible?"

I don't "think" a beginning is necessary, but if I assume that to be the case I can account for everything that I know of, from elementary particles, to humans, to galaxies, with a theory of physics. I can't do this without a big bang like event, so I prefer the assumption that makes things explicable. Why a singular miracle? Because I find anything else inelegant and ugly.

You say, "I do not have to accept that a miracle is a better hypothesis than an eternal process requiring no miracle."

You don't have to accept anything, but I believe that you are confused if you think you have some way around the unexplained, which James calls "the miracle" and which I see no problem with. It sounds like you're getting hung up on a word. I think it's a good word, and appropriate. You define it as "just an amazing or wonderful event." That's understatement if I've ever heard it. But I'll let James argue the point.

As for 'eternal', If you have an eternal theory and can develop all the particles and forces that we know of, and **none that we don't know of**, I'd be interested, otherwise, I'll stick with what works.

I -am- "stuck" on the word because words are how we actually understand each other. There is a problem with different individual comprehension of the word "miracle". My everyday dictionary "The Collins dictionary of the English language" defines a miracle as: 1. a marvellous event attributed to a supernatural cause 2. any amazing or wonderful event.

The similarity between both of those dictionary definitions is that they refer to -an event- not just existence. I have not come across "miracle" used as an inexplicable "starting assumption". Isn't that a postulate? "Collins dictionary of the English language" Postulate:(May take a clause as object) 1. to assume to be true, or existent;take for granted. 2.To ask, demand or claim ......4.something taken as self evident or assumed on the basis of an argument 5.A prerequisite 6.A fundamental principle 7.Logic, maths. An unproven statement that should be taken for granted, used as an initial premise for the process of reasoning.

You and James meant something other than the definitions that I understand to be the meanings of "miracle". Perhaps you expected me to extract your comprehension of it telepathically! It may be that "miracle" is used differently in your part of the world. Interchangeably with any postulate perhaps. Otherwise why do you defend the choice of such a controversial word with supernatural connotation?

I will admit that the universe is miraculous:"Collins dictionary of the English language" 1. of, like, or caused by a miracle; marvellous.

What further explanation is required for the assumption of eternal? People seem quite happy talking about a spatially infinite universe, arising from an infinitely small point- so why isn't temporally infinite as easy to comprehend and accept. Or an atemporal universe that is not -in time- but only in timeless space. Why does an eternal or atemporal universe require delusion and confusion but an infinite universe from an infinitely small singularity, breaking the known laws of physics does not?

Maybe the "final patten" eventually feeds back into a "starting pattern" like universal cats cradle; but in a complete and eternal cycle who could say where the start is? and why should that pattern be any different from any other? Not sure why It would be necessary to show how the elementary particles and forces particles -developed-within that concept of the universe. Seems to me they would just be the smallest inferable patterns within and disturbances of the medium filling space. I am very interesting to hear that you think big bang works.Thank you for sharing your opinions.

"You say everyone must believe in a first miracle. Why? A miracle is either a marvellous event attributed to a supernatural cause or just an amazing or wonderful event. I do not see why there has to be such an event to get things started in an eternally creative universe. ..."

The miracle is definitely not supernatural. It is the recognition that the reason for natural...

"You say everyone must believe in a first miracle. Why? A miracle is either a marvellous event attributed to a supernatural cause or just an amazing or wonderful event. I do not see why there has to be such an event to get things started in an eternally creative universe. ..."

The miracle is definitely not supernatural. It is the recognition that the reason for natural existence is inexplicable. The miracle is the cause for effects. It is not the limited miracle of getting things into motion or even getting things into existence. It is the miracle of motion and existence. there is no absence of need of the miracle at anytime or under any conditions. I insist on using the word miracle in place of saying the inexplicable first and forever cause for effects. The word cause is insufficient by itself because of the artificial theoretical fundamental forces that currently substitute as cause.

"I do not have to accept that a miracle is a better hypothesis than an eternal process requiring no miracle. I am assuming you are talking of something super-natural IE not part of the the normal working of the universe complying with the basic laws of physics."

There is no such thing as an eternal process that does not require a miracle. Existence requires cause in order to continue itself always. I do not talk about super-natural. Everything I say allows for the basic laws of physics. Perhaps you say this because you believe in the inventions of theoretical physics that substitute for cause. They are not the definition of natural.

"I did not say that the universe needed to be set in motion. You have misread what I wrote. ..."

What I wrote at this point is vague to me.

"...James, there are two options for the motion; either it was always in motion or something set it in motion. One requires only that the process is eternal and the other requires a miracle. Take your choice. ..."

The concept of cause is the same in both choices. There is no such circumstance where something is set in motion and then continues its operation in the absence of cause.

"...I say the miracle is not required. ..."

Cause is always required and it remains completely inexplicable. The cause for the operation of the universe is a miracle. The point for my continuing to stress the use of the word miracle is to not allow theoretical physics to claim that its invented substitutes are not miracles. They are covers to hide ignorance. No one knows what cause is.

"It is not more scientific, or psychologically satisfying -to me-, than the concept of eternity. A start requires breaking of the laws of physics, whereas an eternal process does not. ..."

No, a start does not require breaking the laws of physics nor does an eternal process escape the need to explain its existence.

"...I agree that everything is less likely if dependent upon nothing as its ancestor. ..."

Everything is completely unlikely if dependent upon nothing as its ancestor.

(Georgina my post may be getting too long it won't preview. I will split it into two parts)

"...Thats why I am thinking that it is more likely that the Object universe is eternal, endlessly creative, omnipotent, omnipresent and the source of the data from which the image universe is constructed by observers. ..."

Here you are injecting inexplicable free-bees while writing as if you are explaining creation.

"...Thats why I am thinking that it is more likely that the Object universe is eternal, endlessly creative, omnipotent, omnipresent and the source of the data from which the image universe is constructed by observers. ..."

Here you are injecting inexplicable free-bees while writing as if you are explaining creation.

"I did not say that Newton got anything wrong, I was just saying that that being at rest is a relative perception. Which Einstein realised. Those things that seem at rest to me are not from a universal perspective IE with respect to everything else in the universe."

Newton also understood that being at rest is a relative perception. All empirical evidence is about change. There is no empirical evidence for the existence of rest.

"...Why talk about patterns? The feedback of last output into the mathematics in vivo ,(the relationships) is the cause of the next output and so on and so on. The pattern generates the pattern and on and on; from the motion directed by the forces within the pattern. Those forces are due to the relationships of the properties of the parts of the arrangements. Scales, quantities, separations, orientations relative to other parts and other arrangements; within and between material objects, particles, and media that exist. They (forces within the patterns) direct the Action of the various parts. ..."

This description is not an explanation although it is intended to serve as one. It explains nothing. It merely acknowledges the existence of orderly effects.

"...Why must the patterns have an origin? Is an origin always a necessity for a pattern? Why can't they just arise and grow and slowly decay or be quickly destroyed within the eternal chaos? Can't it just be an iteration of an eternal process? ..."

Patterns are about change. Change requires cause at all times. The rest of your statement is again not an explanation.

"...I have said nothing about intelligence in my preceding posts. We have discussed it before and no reached any agreement. ..."

I always get around to include intelligence in my posts for the purpose of making it clear that the universe is not the mechanical machine portrayed by theoretical physics.

"...I will just say that Chaos theory shows that mathematical complexity can arise from simplicity and biologists generally agree that biological complexity can arise from relative simplicity, via embryo-genesis and growth, within and organism, and via evolution, spanning across generations. Something really complex like intelligence can probably arise and dissipate within complex patterns of matter that are being formed and then de constructed. Rather than being a primordial cause it is probably just another phenomenon that can occur/exists within an eternally creative Object universe, among many other complex phenomena."

What we see is that what appears to us to be simplicity or randomness are neither. The idea that complexity can arise from simplicity or that intelligence can arise from lack of intelligence results from looking at effects and wrongly believing that effects can be cause. Descriptions about examples of what occurs are merely recitals about effects. Those descriptions are not about cause. Cause is not yet explained. The fact that the universe exists right now is proof that cause exists right now. There is no way to remove the miracle of cause no matter how one describes the universe.

if you meant everyone must believe in a first postulate then I don't really disagree. At least not with the necessity of having one. Belief is stronger than "accept" or "take" (on a temporary basis with the option of discarding it if a better first postulate is found, which I would prefer to keep as an option). The thinking about what is and what happens has to start from (or work back to) some assumption taken for granted, I agree.

For Edwin it is a big bang creating a universe (presumably he is talking about the hypothetical fully existent space-time continuum from bang to crunch, or cold death, or whatever) inflating miraculously from a singularity, for you it is.. I had better not say in case I get it wrong, for Marcel it is just eternal time and nothing else that spawns everything in the universe, for me it is an eternally creative Object universe in space without time (not the space-time continuum)- and that's just four of us.

I don't think everyone -must- "believe" in the same first postulate. But I also don't think that all first postulates are "created equal".

our posts crossed. Thank you for clarifying your reason for using the word miracle and your definition of it.

I am not quite sure why you are in such strong disagreement.

1. We both want motion "for free".

2. You have not specified the necessity for a beginning of the motion and neither have I.

3. You insist that the universe can not be without it and so do I.

I have tried to show how that motion, the Object universal trajectories of everything IMHO feeds the eternal creative processes, which you then call freebees. But the pattern forming ability, mathematical relationships "in vivo" come with the eternal Object universe. Edwin's big bang gives him all the particles and forces he requires for a fully existent static space-time continuum, and Marcel's time somehow differentiates itself into everything. (I can't remember how, it is quite a while ago that she explained.) I think you must have some extra freebees of you own hidden within your miraculous postulate.

(You are correct Newton did understand relativity.) I was just trying to show that -I- was not saying anything new or adding anything of my own to Newton's law.)

further to my previous reply, more food for thought- hope you have time to read it.

The space time continuum is also now an eternal universe with a universal perspective, rather than individual observer perspective, as it is spread across space-time for all time. Emerging and creating space and time from a singularity and its ending is debated. There is no consensus. It is...

further to my previous reply, more food for thought- hope you have time to read it.

The space time continuum is also now an eternal universe with a universal perspective, rather than individual observer perspective, as it is spread across space-time for all time. Emerging and creating space and time from a singularity and its ending is debated. There is no consensus. It is presumably only the end for the observers who reach that place in space and time of the universe, unless the universe is going to miraculously suck space and time back out of existence or crush it back into the singularity.

It is unnecessary to infer the space time continuum from relativity, as is only necessary to have data within a uni-temporal environment from which a space-time image is constructed. There is growing doubt concerning the big bang arising from astronomical evidence that shows galaxies older than expected in what should be earlier parts of the universe, John Merryman has posted examples over the years.

The fully existent space-time continuum as the entirety of the universe is incompatible with QM, causes paradoxes and other unanswered foundational questions, and requires different laws of physics for the hypothetical formation.It is fully deterministic as all events were set out at inflation and are eternally unchanging. It allows no free will or self determination as everything already exists as it was, is and will be. It is an abomination.

Let me be clear. "The Collins dictionary of the English language": Abomination:1. a person or thing that is disgusting or loathsome 2. an action that is viscous, vile etc. 3. intense loathing or disgust.

Contrast the explanatory framework I have provided a number of times on this site. It does not require breaking the laws of physics, is compatible with QM, space-time relativity, chaos theory and Newtonian space, will work with string theory like ideas and probably also holographic ideas, various kinds of multi-verse and Max Tegmark's mathematical universe concept,it overcomes the temporal paradoxes and answers a number of foundational questions that are inexplicable with a space-time continuum alone.It has an open future allowing new events to arise and the past is erased as the material of the Object universe is recycled, only the data remaining from which images of former events can be observed.

Part of it is eternal, an ever changing universal arrangement/pattern of particles, object and media, always containing mathematical relationships leading to further change. That eternal Object universe is a smaller ask and far less problematic than an eternal fully existent space-time continuum. Or one that breaks the laws of physics to pop into existence and back out again. You get change because the observer progresses through time and sees different parts of the fully existent continuum. I get change because the Object universe is continually changing and creating itself, and the observer sees the image of that from reflected and emitted EM.

Probably your key statement is, "It would be necessary to show how the elementary particles and forces particles -developed-within that concept of the universe. Seems to me they would just be the smallest inferable patterns within and disturbances of the medium filling space."

"Seems to me they would just be the smallest inferable patterns within and disturbances of the medium filling space," is a poetic idea, not a theory of elementary particles. You must explain how the neutrino, the electron, the up and down quarks, specifically, and three 'families' of such occur, why only left handed neutrinos, and how mass, charge,and spin arise, with equations, descriptions, and hopefully masses. And without the need for twice as many as are observed (SUSY = supersymmetry). And I believe without a Higgs. Very different from "Seems to me they would just be the smallest inferable patterns within and disturbances of the medium filling space." I simply don't think your idea works.

As I suspected, a good part of your hangup is on the word miracle. Perhaps that's why James and I like the word. It makes it clear that there is NO "scientific" word that explains existence. It forces one to recognize that one goes outside of science when one speaks of existence. And without a theory of particles, just saying "eternal" does not explain a thing. It is a mental "sweeping under the rug" of the problem.

You claim that your idea "is compatible with QM, space-time relativity, chaos theory and Newtonian space, will work with string theory like ideas and probably also holographic ideas, various kinds of multi-verse and Max Tegmark's mathematical universe concept,it overcomes the temporal paradoxes and answers a number of foundational questions that are inexplicable with a space-time continuum alone." That is it's problem. If it is compatible with everything, it is far too general to be useful. "Everything" does not exist, a very specific universe exists. I don't wish in this thread to attack holographic ideas and Tegmark's idea, but I find them completely off-base. I am glad that you are happy with your framework, and it is in many ways admirable. It is not a theory of physics. You say, "I get change because the Object universe is continually changing and creating itself." Of course it is, but the elementary particles of which it is composed are **very specific** patterns that apparently do NOT change over 14 billion years, and I deem this worthy of study and of explanation. That is, in my mind, the goal of physics, to explain the basic building blocks and how they accommodate the change you speak of. But with the recognition that, at the root is a mystery, which James and I refer to as the miracle.

Isn't it wonderful that FQXi tolerates both of us, and all the others.

I don't know how many elementary particles are separate kinds of existent entity or force in nature and how many are just labels for the inferences from scattering patterns. Obtained from experiments under -very unnatural- conditions. I can accept that there are patterns in nature arising from the mathematical relationships within what exists, and like you I am taking as a given...

I don't know how many elementary particles are separate kinds of existent entity or force in nature and how many are just labels for the inferences from scattering patterns. Obtained from experiments under -very unnatural- conditions. I can accept that there are patterns in nature arising from the mathematical relationships within what exists, and like you I am taking as a given that something exists, and that those patterns extend to the smallest discernible scale and probably beyond. How physicists might like to name, differentiate, classify and mathematically model the different kinds of pattern and disturbances, including the ones inferred from high energy collisions, is up to them. That's your interest and specialism.

I'm not sure how you can say that -a very specific- universe exists when you have said that your postulate from which it arises is unscientific. Scientific evidence shows that there are many different facets to the universe, understood by different branches of physics but not united into a singular explanatory framework. Different parts of the blind men's elephant. The scientific evidence, mathematical and experimental matters of fact have lead to various theories I have mentioned. I am not denying the existence of EM radiation spread though the environment or that there is the appearance of space-time, I only deny that it is fully existing and ever unchanging from a miraculous creation and inflation to disputed end. It is the difference between information that can be formed into an image only and past events themselves persisting. Giving time travel paradoxes.

The externally existing space-time continuum also implies that all atrocities and crimes against individuals and humanity were ordained at the inflation of the universe to exist unchanging for the duration of the space-time continuum. Not the result of humanities cruelty to humanity but ordained by the universe and never within the capacity of human beings to alter or direct in any way, as all free will and self determination is denied. Those crimes against humanity and individuals are never gone but fixed in space-time, still happening, possibly to be replayed endlessly. That is the consequence of your miracle,as well as a nice classification of elementary particles. A high price to pay. Thats why I consider it an abomination as well as just being incorrect.

I am not aiming to be a theoretical physicist. I am not claiming that the explanatory framework is a "theory of physics". It allows a lot of existing physics to work together or potentially work together to explain the entirety of reality we inhabit. Development can continue, theories can be improved, but it will be possible to check that the interpretations given to, or inferences taken from, the matters of fact (mathematical and experimental) are compatible with the entirety of reality. That is not useless. I do appreciate that you have also said something nice about it, which you did not have to do. Thank you for your reply.

G. "I'm not sure how you can say that -a very specific- universe exists when you have said that your postulate from which it arises is unscientific."

E. "It makes it clear that there is NO "scientific" word that explains existence. It forces one to recognize that one goes outside of science when one speaks of existence. And without a theory of particles, just saying "eternal" does not explain a thing. It is a mental "sweeping under the rug" of the problem."

Georgina,

I am not speaking for Edwin, I am speaking for myself:

It is scientific to say that science does not include an explanation for existence. Are you saying that you can explain existence? I think that you are saying that you know about a variety of effects that have occurred because the universe is in existence?

You replied to me with a message where you explained my position in parts. You do not understand my position. Regardless of the details of my position, it is clear that Edwin's position far surpasses mine technically. My opinion is that my position far surpasses your position. Is this what you want to hear or do you want to express your own opinion without having to constantly be interrupted to be told that you are wrong?

The best practice is to express your own ideas in your own way and to avoid explaining the positions of others. It is distressing to see one's position misrepresented is so matter-of-fact a manner. With regard to your explanations about the conditions for the existence of the universe, miracles by another name just will not do. They are unscientific.

I have taken note of this. You said "It is the miracle of motion and existence. there is no absence of need of the miracle at anytime or under any conditions."I am now aware that you are not using miracle to mean an event or supernatural occurrence, but something that it is necessary to take as postulate. I too require existence of "something" as a given, and for there to be continual motion.

Not sure what I have failed to grasp. I am not even sure we are disagreeing yet. Though I agree, about agreeing to disagree again. It would not be good to split hairs over who's necessary motion and existence is better and whether it is more accurate to say a (perpetual) miracle is occurring rather than just saying "stuff happens", as both John and I have agreed.

To me reference to "the miracle" seems to have more reverence. "Stuff happens" has more humour though. Not only does it seem true, both at a superficial and deep philosophical level, but its unsophisticated simplicity is making light of very big cosmological and philosophical questions, as well as the complexities of everyday life. Sometimes being able to laugh seems more important to me.

My purpose for the use of the word miracle, is to make two things clear. One is that only one miracle should be tolerable in the scientific development of theoretical physics. The other is that theoretical physics, and by association those who rely upon it to support their own ideas, relies upon miracles for its explanation of cause or in its case causes. The miracles are not introduced by me. They are removed by me. The miracles of theoretical physics have their own individual names, but miracles by another name are still miracles and they should be separated out as the unknowables from the knowables so that theoretical physics can be miracle free except of course for the single miracle that just will not go away because we cannot explain the cause for existence.

Neither of us can -explain- existence.I have not said that I am trying to do that. I have constructed a framework that helps to explain the reality that exists not one that explains, or needs to explain, how it got there.

It may be scientific to say there is no scientific explanation of existence itself. But Edwin seemed to be...

Neither of us can -explain- existence.I have not said that I am trying to do that. I have constructed a framework that helps to explain the reality that exists not one that explains, or needs to explain, how it got there.

It may be scientific to say there is no scientific explanation of existence itself. But Edwin seemed to be saying that there is only one possible -very specific- universe. That is based however upon his postulate for how existence came to be. Not upon the scientific evidence of physicists from many different branches of physics.

RE speaking for you:I don't know what you are talking about. I have not attempted to explain your position in parts or in any way. I -have- tried to find some correspondence between our ideas. Which were those 3 numbered points where I thought we appeared not to disagree.You could have corrected those if I was mistaken.I have taken care -not- to try to explain your ideas but to give -my- opinions and to -try- to understand what you tell me. Did you notice when talking of different people's postulates I said "for you it is.. I had better not say in case I get it wrong" Because I was taking very great care -not to speak for you- or give the impression that I was.!!!

Perhaps there is some confusion because there is some genuine overlap in what we both think or you are just thinking that my attempts to examine the validity of your position are misrepresentations of you. Well then, I won't even try to find any correspondence in our opinions, or clarification where I find problems in comprehending or accepting your propositions again. I don't need the grief. Make your pronouncements of what "everyone must believe" and I will just ignore you in future.

I do not want people to just tell me I am correct. All along I have sought and responded to any kind of feedback that would allow me to evaluate my ideas and construct something that works and is acceptable to science.I have argued (a lot) to see if my own ideas stand up to scrutiny. If they have then they have survived, if not they have changed. With regard to my own work, if there are genuine mistakes, important omissions, technical problems, philosophical problems, linguistic problems, ambiguities or typos I want to know about them. Just to be told by you, JP:"My opinion is that my position far surpasses your position" is worthless hot air and sounds a bit disrespectful.It does not help to enlighten me regarding your physics or philosophy at all or help me re-evaluate my own ideas by comparison to your own.

If your physics/philosophy is inexplicable then why not just say "this is so complex that it can not be comprehended by just any intelligent person but requires some technical expertise (or level of genius) that you do not posses. If that is the case I understand. If not then I should be able to understand, if carefully and considerately explained, as I'm really quite clever, despite what you might think. I am aware that you think I am ignorant and incapable of understanding your wisdom, as you expressed your opinions very clearly on a previous occasion. Forgiven but not forgotten.

Thank you for your further clarification. I now understand that when you (and Edwin?) use the word "miracle" it is not only a substitute for the term "postulate" but a deliberate (not mistaken) choice of term also representing your personal philosophy of "cleansing" physics (which could not be known from the word alone).

"...Just to be told by you, JP:"My opinion is that my position far surpasses your position" is worthless hot air and sounds a bit disrespectful.It does not help to enlighten me regarding your physics or philosophy at all or help me re-evaluate my own ideas by comparison to your own.

If your physics/philosophy is inexplicable then why not just say "this is so complex that it can not be comprehended by just any intelligent person but requires some technical expertise (or level of genius) that you do not posses. If that is the case I understand. If not then I should be able to understand, if carefully and considerately explained, as I'm really quite clever, despite what you might think. I am aware that you think I am ignorant and incapable of understanding your wisdom, as you expressed your opinions very clearly on a previous occasion. Forgiven but not forgotten."

Ok, I thought I understood and now I feel certain that I do. The problem is mine. Except that I do not want to go through trying to fix it. This is not my profession. I shouldn't have interjected that message and should have left well enough alone.

However, for other readers, I do not introduce miracles, I remove them from theoretical physics down to one. An amatuer's delight. If you wish to learn what this means and to see how a real physicist would pursue this goal check out Physicist Dr. Edwin Klingman's professional work. He has essays available in the Essay Contests section. He has published his work in book form for all to read. Someone has to get this job done and, I would be pleased if it was him.

thank you. Sorry for being so forthright in my opinions. It wasn't to give you a hard time. Just some things that I feel strongly about and thought needed saying. The paradoxes are often discussed, a bit of fun, but the "dark side" of the space-time continuum does not seem to get a mention. I was putting that right.

No apologies due. I terminated the conversation because it's seemed clear that you don't understand what I am saying and I don't wish to argue with you about it. I don't use the term 'miracle' but I think James uses it appropriately and expressed it well. I hope that you are careful that you do not slip into solipsism. Sometimes you seem headed that way.

But what is “intelligence”, what is its physical basis and hence why is it in any sense fundamentally different from any other occurrence, ie outcomes are the result of interaction of previously existent outcomes? I might have misread what you said, but you seemed to be implying this was ‘special’.

Yes there is a point at which ‘can’t know’ has to be invoked (“one miracle”), within that physical reality is explainable. It is deterministic. We, or any other sentient organism, do not create it. Or as Edwin says later: “It [miracle] makes it clear that there is NO "scientific" word that explains existence. It forces one to recognize that one goes outside of science when one speaks of existence”. We can only know of existence as it is manifest to sentient organisms. And science is about explaining what we potentially can know, not what we can’t.

Now James has explained what -he- means by the term miracle, and he has explained it well, I can see why he considers it a good term to use. But since it is a term with religious and supernatural connotation I think that it is likely that the same mis-comprehension will arise when he introduces it to new people. But that is his choice, that he has jsutified. I would have thought identifying that there might be some ambiguity there might be -helpful- to him as he can be prepared for similar misunderstanding in the future.You have expressed your own good judgement.

I have no problem with people using whatever words they want, and agreeing about them.( -though there may be misunderstanding of what they are agreeing about if the language is ambiguous.)The ambiguity exists I did not make it.I'll not say any more about it, or anything else with connection to James as I have no intention of offending him, and you, any further.

RE big bang and continuum. I wanted to point out the problems- as I see them- with that little bit of physics, -that you defended-. Not because I have a problem with you, or what you are doing but because there is a problem. You don't have to agree with me of course. I didn't make it. The problem exists whether it is identified or not. That little bit of doubt might just be -helpful-. Maybe not, it may just be an irritation.

Tolerate ???? FqxI IS NOT TRANSPARENT !!! AND ALSO THEIR MEMBERS ARE NOT INTEGRE.

Frankly it is a joke Edwin of what ???

My theory is wonderful that it is wonderful like innovation, don't compare a water drop with an ocean please.The politeness and the false politeness shall not change this evidence.

A real comedy club and a real team with bizare comportments!

Sad is a weak word. Mr Aguirre and Mr Tegmark, probebaly that your hormonal vanity will increase due to my words, logic , you are humans with defaults.Probably that you are full of hates, but I will eat your hate with love ! Incredible isn't it ? I am a peron of well with or without your approvemenst, calomnias and diffamations of pseudos frustrated. They have profitted of my kindness and my transparence, they have also proffited of my bad english and also the difficulty of translation of words like the word sphere. Frankly I know who are these persons and why they make that.

I am not here to offend people but to show them the road of foundamentals and their errors with rationality and determinism. The rest is vain. I am direct and frank, I am not here to make false politeness or to agree with pseudo works.No I am here for a precise aim. Share my theory in a total transparence in continuing to imrprove it, me of course , not the others pseudos.

Good day James and think about the entropy and the uniquenss of course.

I never said intelligence comes from unintelligence. I said intelligence is the intersection of awareness and complexity. Since I think both are eternal, as I see time as simply a measure of change, I don't even require a beginning.

"I never said intelligence comes from unintelligence. I said intelligence is the intersection of awareness and complexity. ..."

I understand. I was attempting to respond to this paragraph below and then to continue typing my thoughts about why it is intelligent to argue in favor of purpose.

"If the universe is always under control, then wouldn't everything be deterministic? What would be the purpose/necessity of intelligence in a deterministic reality? We need order to exist, but we need disorder to thrive, otherwise we would quickly degenerate into soulless automatons.

Law may govern action, but chance governs input."

I left this part off earlier, but, I wasn't certain how you meant it. I don't discount tht things can happen by chance. What they cannot happen by is true meaningless randomness. I wasn't assuming that you meant this latter point.

"...Since I think both are eternal, as I see time as simply a measure of change, I don't even require a beginning."

There is always a beginning. Even if the universe always existed. What I mean by that is one either explains the cause of the universe or they are making it up for free. This cause is not just a physical beginning. It is the reason why the universe continues to operate. It is the beginning for explaining the operation of the universe. It is the always present cause. It can never be absent. The mechanical inventions called fundamental forces are not that cause. They are theoretical endpoints adopted out of ignorance about how to continue to find unity in the form of the single cause.

What I am writing is not intended as a response to anyone in particular. It is my claim that it is intelligent to understand that intelligence can only come from intelligence and could never arise from the mechanical fundamental invented causes of theoretical physics. In short form, intelligence cannot be explained by the generally accepted theoretical physics of today.

The issue I have with meaning of life questions isn't to do with life, but with the concept of meaning, or purpose. These are essentially reductionistic concepts. What we have left when we distill away all that is meaningless. What is that hard little nugget of eternal validation residing at the core of life and reality? It is a useful concept when we are making subjective decisions about everyday reality, such as what we want to keep and what isn't worth the effort required to maintain, etc. It doesn't apply to the larger dynamic though. Life is it's own meaning and purpose. When people really start asking that question amongst themselves it can readily boil down to questions of whose life is worth saving and whose is just taking up space that could be put to better use. Then it gets applied to whole groups of people. These questions do come up and likely will always come up, since we live on an increasingly crowded planet.

This is not to say judgements should never be made, but that they need to be made relative to circumstance, not as universal standards and declarations. That's why we do have individual intelligence. Judgement is subjective. There are no perfect standards, because perfection is everything balanced out to a big flatline on the universal heart monitor. Ultimate simplicity. It's the squiggles, details, imperfections, opposing elements, conflicting perspectives, etc. which are the basis of this reality we inhabit. It's constantly evolving tapestry of interaction, not a singular path from one point to another. Consider that for individuals, birth is in the past and death is in the future, but for the species and life in general, the future is constantly being born, as the past dies off. Details and events go from being in the future to being in the past, while the process constantly creates new details and events.

This reality is not random, but it's not linear. There is no way to know all input into any event, prior to its occurrence. In basic physical terms, information can arrive from opposite directions at the speed of light, so in order to predict what might occur, we would need to gather that input faster than the speed of light. If such a method were possible, then this method could also transmit information to events faster then light and the same dilemma occurs.

"The issue I have with meaning of life questions isn't to do with life, but with the concept of meaning, or purpose. These are essentially reductionistic concepts. What we have left when we distill away all that is meaningless. ..."

I don't have anything argumentative to say about macroscopic observations of variations in intelligence and its uses. I think most people have interesting input about these after-the-fact observations, meaning results.

Your quote above is something that I would disgree with as I understand it. While it does seem obvious that if one removes elements of intelligence there should be a point where there are no elements left. I see this as a macroscopic opinion based upon observation of results. I do not see it as addressing the nature of intelligence as in understanding what it is and why it is.

I have been here long enough and so have you that I assume you have seen my attempts to point to what I refer to as the photon storm and our ability to make any sense out of it at all. That is the simplest macroscopic example I thought of in order to be able to begin discussions that could lead to moving away from macroscopic observations and toward microscopic involvement, about the why and where of intelligence in the universe. I don't recall what you might or might not have thought about that example.

I am not writing these messages to anyone in particular or in an effort to change minds. I am writing them because they say what I think should be self-evident. It is clear that this is not about obvious logic because it gets rejected so easily from most persons. Now it does appear obvious to me, but, I do not wish to convince others that what does not appear obvious to them should be obvious. No, not that, but, I think there is a strong case to be made for self-evident.

I do not find such to be the case in positions that depend upon free-bee causes and free-bee intelligence and foggy veiled arguments to suggest that anything about the nature of the universe arises from lack of purpose or lack of meaning or just plain 'dumbness'.

I think your message made plenty of valid points. Thank you for sharing your opinion.

I suppose I still don't quite get the fullness of your understanding of "intelligence." To me, it is the networking, both neural and social, of elemental awareness. It is these feedback loops which concentrate and focus a more ephemeral sense of being. Yet the more concentrated it is, the more subjective and contextual it becomes. This ordering of awareness serves as a form of mental straitjacket, in that the more trained and ordered the mind is, the less adaptable it becomes. It is like the difference between youth and maturity. The young are very aware, but very limited on their ability to process information, while adults are very adept at processing information, but only within the frame they have adopted. Sort of like stem cells can be any part of the body, but once they have become one part, no longer have a range of options. Hopefully this helps to explain why I distinguish between elemental awareness and developed intelligence.

Whether the point is directed at me, or not, I'm not saying people lack purpose. Someone without purpose won't get out of bed. I'm saying that purpose is necessarily subjective and while people can work toward common objectives, it is still inherently subjective. We all have purpose in being part of something larger, but on universal scales, much like energy, it all tends to balance out. If you and your purpose were to suddenly vanish, nature would quickly fill it in with another, as nature hates a vacuum.

What is elemental awareness? I don't have a problem with that expression except that I do not know what you mean by it. You say many things that make good sense to me. But, my sense is not the same as your sense, so, there are important differences. Take this following quote of yours for example:

"...If you and your purpose were to suddenly vanish, nature would quickly fill it in with another, as nature hates a vacuum."

For me, it holds no scientific meaning. For me, it is an expression about one's allegorical support for one's own belief. However, perhaps you can show the scientific link, or lack of link, between purpose and vacuum?

I had a bit of a headache around the eyes this morning, but still had to ride a few horses. Normally I'm a very visual person, but with riding, I tend to think more with my whole body and not get too analytical, because that is more disruptive than it is necessary. Because it involves action, I couldn't ignore the headache all that well, but there were times I would feel myself...

I had a bit of a headache around the eyes this morning, but still had to ride a few horses. Normally I'm a very visual person, but with riding, I tend to think more with my whole body and not get too analytical, because that is more disruptive than it is necessary. Because it involves action, I couldn't ignore the headache all that well, but there were times I would feel myself behind that part of the brain and while I could feel the throbbing, it was like feeling my own heartbeat; Part of me, but part I was observing, not the part doing the observing, which is what eyes are usually doing.

Consciousness is like that. It's a focal point of an extended network and the area of focus isn't always as confined as we think. Consider when you are trying to think of something and it's "on the tip of your tongue," but you can't quite recall it. It's a bit like someone else on the other side of a window, trying to get your attention. These are essentially separate focal points of consciousness, with more of an attraction, than a connection. When that missing thought does come to you, the connection is made and the two become one.

People are complex multicellular organisms, yet in many ways, they function under the same set of rules as single celled organisms, just with the added complexity of multiple cells functioning as one, with varying levels of efficiency. We view the moral code of good vs. bad as the epitome of what it means to be human, yet they are the primal biological binary code of being attracted to the beneficial and repelled by the detrimental. This is the primary impulse of even single celled organisms. With multicelled organisms the calculations just get more complex in making decisions. Say you dropped something valuable in some ice water. The cells of your hand are saying nada, nope, not going there. While your extended desires that have assigned value to that object are saying too bad, you got to do it. After it's done, the blood flow to your hand increases, warming it back up. Now compare that to how society functions, when it persuades/forces some members of the group to do things they don't like, but are considered necessary for the benefit of the larger group. If they are not duly compensated for this, as the hand gets extra blood to warm it back up, then there bad feelings developing. Eventually if this feedback loop breaks down and there is no response from the dominant members, eventually the larger society rebels and doesn't respond, much as a body will cease responding when it's been pushed past its limits. Now humanity is reaching the point of understanding its terrestrial limits and is starting to apply value judgements to the health of the entire planet, but some people and groups are dissenting, because they understand their particular interests could be threatened.

So what I'm saying is this sense of awareness that manifests as our consciousness is something of a construct in its multitude of interactions, but conceivably goes to the basis of biology, if not beyond. How it manifests in both complex organisms and the societies in which they function, is a bit like light shining through a magnifying glass. By focusing on one central point, it pulls attention/light from the surrounding organism/society/area covered by the glass, so there is a sense of isolation for this complex, focused consciousness. Then when meeting up with other manifestations of this consciousness, it can be magnetic; either they are attracted to each other and become one larger focus, or are repelled and gravitate to opposite poles of some larger situation/conflict. Or they can simply pass through one another, as two beams of light might cross. In these modern times, with society frequently moving about geographically, economically, etc, strong emotional ties don't get much opportunity to grow, so most people go around in their own particular shells and try to avoid disturbing others spaces.

As for purpose and vacuum, don't overthink it. It's like if you were a farmer and died, someone else would take over the farm, adapting it to their model of what farming entails. With your emotional network, if you were to die, it would wound those around you, but eventually those connections would heal and the emotional energies would divert to strengthening other connections. Life goes on.

I was reading something more fundamental into your linking of purpose and vaccum. No doubt if I were gone someone else would soon occupy my house. I thought your message of today was very well written and interesting. It took some time to write and it is appreciated.

Thank you. It is a bit of a biological quantum computation. Good/bad, yes/no, on/off, 1/0, positive/negative, etc, yet with no clear delineation from the active superposition. No line where the chicken ends and the fox begins. I think we will find light and life to be more holographic, than digital.

I've never worried that AI would rise from electronics, but have always wondered about when they start using genes and cells to make computers and find they are aware and start to self organize.

Ultimate truth in physics lies not in what is inanimate. You always seek the typical and fundamental experiences first. Inertial and gravitational equivalency and balancing lies at the very heart of physics -- fundamentally, that is, in reference to F=ma, instantaneity, particle/wave, quantum gravity, and balanced attraction and repulsion.

Gravity enjoins and balances visible and invisible space. A great truth in physics. Physics happens in and with time. Inertia and gravity both

at half strength/force is key. Inertia and gravity are elemental and fundamental to distance in/of space.

A miracle is an event or action that apparently contradicts known scientific laws and is thought to be due to supernatural causes, especially to an act of God.

I want to tighten up that definition. It will be the criterion for this message: An event or action that contradicts known scientific laws and is unnatural with natural being defined by the known scientific laws.

If a bullet fired parallel to the Earth changed its velocity in contradiction to that which would be predicted according to known scientific laws, that act would constitute a miracle. A very slight change in velocity in contradiction to known scientific laws would be a minor miracle. If the bullet stopped in midair and reversed its direction flying backwards, that action would constitute a major miracle. The difference between the two being a matter of degree. In both cases, and all variations inbetween, the action represents miraculous unnatural change.

If an electron is moving through an electric field according to known scientific law, its motion is natural. The governing scientific law would include electric charge as the cause. The law itself applies only to predicting the action of the electron. There is no known scientific law to explain the existence of electric charge. The existence of electric charge then is a miracle. Electric charge is not the only cause included in theoretical physics. Each cause exists without a known scientific law to explain how it exists. Each cause is a miracle. There are multiple causes in theoretical physics representing multiple miracles.

If these miracles are allowed to persist and even be added to as theory becomes more complex, they represent a very risky practice that may include inventions of the mind that are adopted simply out of ignorance about how to proceed without them. They could form false theoretical endpoints the stop inquiry prematurely. Theorists would be free to fill in stubborn blanks with additional miracles.

Theoretical physicists should act agressively to prevent the inclusion of miracles. However, which causes may be real even though their existence is inexplicable and cannot be supported by known scientific laws? Which causes are inventions and act to block further scientific learning. A test must be developed to weed out miracles and purify theory so that it depends as closely as possible only on scientific laws.

The test proposed begins with the act of assuming that each cause is unnatural and therefore unneeded. The test itself consists of removing each cause from inclusion in theory. The theorist deletes the cause from theory and searches for a way to theoretically fill the void. If it is found that theory does not need that cause, then, the cause remains deleted. The theorist then removes another cause and so on and so forth until the point is reached where a cause or causes can no longer be removed from theory.

The importance of this practice for scientific learning is that invention is removed and ignorance is reduced. The test should be continued as far as it will go. If the test is successful in removing miracles, theory will noticably improve. The improvement will be observed most clearly by the advancement of unity. As each miracle is successfully removed, unity comes closer and closer to being achieved for theoretical physics.

If it is found that all causes except one can be removed from theory, then there is only one miracle. This would be the closest the theorist could come to achieving theoretical unity. It would also be the most natural that a theory could be. The limit of retaining one cause is reached because cause cannot be completely removed. Effects occur because of cause. The existence of that one great cause cannot be explained by known scientific law. It remains a miracle. Theory will have been cleaned up and improved greatly, but, at its core, theory will continue to be based upon a miracle.

It will very likely be the case that as the theorist attempts to remove each cause, that one after another firmly resists being removed. It will be determined that that there is no way to theoretically fill the void that is left. As the theorist moves from one cause to another, it may be found that each must be preserved on the basis that theory cannot tolerate their absence.

The reason that this difficulty could arise is that each invention that is not a true cause injects error into theory leading to the need for additional invented causes. The need results because a theoretical error, that is not removed, requires one or more artificial steps to be inserted to bring theory back into balance.

The path out of this dilemma is to determine which step in theory was the first to be injected as an unnecessary miracle into the mix. There is a good chance that all or at least many of the unnecessary miracles are due to that first theoretical misstep that required one or more extra, unecessary miracles to be introduced.

The miracles of theoretical physics are its invented causes. Every cause is a miracle because no one knows what cause is. There are no scientific laws for which to give credit to for the existence of any cause. Some and perhaps all but one cause are pure inventions that serve the purpose of stuffing something into one or more holes existing in scientific knowledge. The stuffing, if it consists of introducing a cause, is miracle stuffing.

A benefit of removing miracles from theoretical physics is immediate in the form of coming closer and closer to establishing theoretical unity. This result is due to the fact that the cause of disunity is multiple causes. As this healing process progresses, the holes in scientific knowledge begin to be filled in with understanding.

There is a way to circumvent the need to go through this process. It consists of starting theory over with one cause and resisting, with conviction, the temptation to add any other causes. The first problem encounterred is the need to decide what cause is the real cause, the cause that really is needed? Knowing where to begin is the challenge.

said I wouldn't comment on Your stuff anymore, but I've decided to risk it after all.It was an intention not a promise.I hope you will not be offended. I think that you've explained the approach well. This not a complaint or negative criticism or an attempted misrepresentation of what you are saying but feedback on -my own- reaction to and comprehension / miscomprehension of what you have said. Which may or may not be helpful or interesting to you.

I can understand the desire to be sure that no misunderstanding or unexplained assumptions have crept into physics. It seems to me now that you are not so much trying to remove the spanners from the works, so physics works better, but applying a 'puritanical' zeal for the ultimate reductionist model of nature. (Which I think you believe/know will make physics better.) It seems to me that the intention is to de-construct physics, distil the essence. It seems to me that the intuition or reasoning is that nature can be built particle by particle, like starting out with a blank page and ink. That seemed to be what Edwin was implying. Your strong objections to seemingly rational explanations now make sense. The explanations given may work using known science but the replies lack the purity you think (in your own mind know) is essential.

Concepts used for hundreds of years are denied to the physicist/philosopher, like the earthy pleasures of song and dance denied to the People as ungodly. Not a criticism but a realisation that purification is the aim. That is helpful to realise as it makes clear that no explanations other than those derived from "purified physics" will suffice and that there is no point supplying any other kind.It saves a lot of unnecessary conversations and distress. That is what I tried to tell Paul and for some reason seemed to cause great upset in doing so.

Again this not a complaint or negative criticism or an attempted misrepresentation of what you are saying but feedback on -my own- reaction to and comprehension / miscomprehension of what you have said. Which may or may not be helpful or interesting to you.

I agree with you and Edwin in that ultimately there is existence (of something)in motion, that can not be reduced any further in order to explain why it is rather than isn't.If that is what you meant. That sounds to me like the Tao. Something "recognised" many thousand of years ago. I don't understand the great distress caused by suggesting that it always was rather than it appeared, or created itself. Both are miraculous both still allow for existence in motion. Edwin says the eternal option is sweeping the problem under the rug but isn't the coming into existence from non existence a supposition taken for granted as well? That's not a criticism, or a statement of what you are saying, but an expression of my -puzzlement- over the very strong reaction to the suggestion.

I can understand that with the purified physics particles could be modelled, and from those structures built, until theoretically a whole universe could be built and only in the way the physics allows. It will still be incomplete IMHO as it is building up to one facet of reality and only when that whole universe is created will the other facet of reality become apparent to the modeller, or maybe it won't. Edwin has expressed a strong intuition that there is more, as he has suggested the need for consciousness.I have disagreed with him on that as I do not think it is consciousness as such that is required at the foundational level. But that is just my opinion, coming at the problem from a completely different angle.

I think it is an interesting approach that may give some very useful insights into what is going on at the foundational level of physics. I am not trying to diminish the worth of it but hoped to see how it fits in relation to other theoretical physics approaches. I think that if the assumption of an externally existing space-time continuum is taken as a foundational reality then a fundamental error is be being made IMHO at the outset. It is not clear to me that that assumption is being made but it seemed that Edwin defended the big bang and so presumably is working with space-time. Could be that I just don't understand what is being done and should just leave well alone.

Everything intended to be considered so far is contained in the messages. Space-time was not mentioned because it is irrelevant at this stage. Even electric charge was not mentioned because it is irrelevant at this stage. There were no assumptions made about foundational reality. The messages were not discussing theory. Theory is not foundational. Empirical evidence in the form of patterns in changes of velocity is foundational.

My messages are not an introduction to a different or reductionist theoretical approach. The subject is the removal of theory. So that readers may understand what this means: Theory is what occurs in the minds of theorists. It is something that is presented in symbollic form to communicate the thoughts and ideas of theorists. That is not what is being proposed.

This is about removing the theorists' imaginings from the equations of physics. This is about mathematically imitating the patterns in changes of velocity absent of inventions of the mind. This is not a new theme in my messages. It has been repeated over the years in my various explanations.

Here is one example of something I have stated several times before: There are only two naturally indefinable units of measurement. They are those of distance and time. Any other units introduced as additional indefinable units are the act of theorists forcing their imaginings into the equations of physics.

It is through the arbitary introduction, for merely theoretical reasons, of indefinable units of measurement that the theorist forces their theory onto the equations and the equations become subservient to theory.

The equations, so long as they were formed to imitate the patterns observed in empirical evidence, began as representing pure scientific learning. It is at that stage that they contain the most information and are most useful for understanding and analyzing the nature of the universe.

The introduction of theory forced into the equations reduces their information content and reduces their usefulness. The deterimental effects of theory appear mainly as the loss of fundamental unity and the need to invent properties in a futile effort to find the lost unity.

The field of physics is not about learning the complete nature of the universe. It is the study of mechanical effects for the purpose of learning how to solve mechanical problems. It does not include learning about the most important properties of the universe. The important properties are intelligence and life. The messages that I have posted so far have to do with the effects of theory on the mathematical treatment of modeling the patterns observed in mechanical effects.

I know I'll regret rising to the bait, but it is frustrating to see my words twisted. You say, "Edwin says the eternal option is sweeping the problem under the rug but isn't the coming into existence from non existence a supposition taken for granted as well?" Georgina, only you can equate "miracle" and "a supposition taken for granted". I do not. You say, "It seems to me that the intuition or reasoning is that nature can be built particle by particle, like starting out with a blank page and ink. That seemed to be what Edwin was implying." That is completely incorrect and not even close to my position.

You say, "Could be that I just don't understand what is being done and should just leave well alone." Yes, you definitely do not understand my position, and rephrasing it with my name attached is something I don't care for. If you wish to banter these subjects about, feel free, and if you absolutely feel the necessity, then quote me. But to simply use my name in association with your statements that pretty much completely miss the point of what I was saying leaves a permanent record that is now attached to me but that does not in any way represent me or my thought. Nor do I have time or interest to follow along behind you to correct your mistatements of my position. I do not in other comments on any blogs describe your views for others, I leave that for you to do. I believe that James made essentially the same point to you a week or so ago. He seemed upset that you paraphrased his statements while completely missing his point. You now see the world through your own filter, or figure, and appear to have a hard time seeing others views. To repeat your own words back at you, "Could be that I just don't understand what is being done and should just leave well alone." Yes.

Still wishing you luck in your own pursuits, and not expecting or asking that you understand mine.

I deliberately did not mention that word again in my posts to James because it seems to cause offence and upset when I try to understand how it is being used. It doesn't mean what my dictionary says. Got that. It doesn't mean what I can comprehend from the words spoken to me apparently.I thought a postulate was a good approximation from what I was told. In my words now tying to show...

I deliberately did not mention that word again in my posts to James because it seems to cause offence and upset when I try to understand how it is being used. It doesn't mean what my dictionary says. Got that. It doesn't mean what I can comprehend from the words spoken to me apparently.I thought a postulate was a good approximation from what I was told. In my words now tying to show -my- comprehension from what I have been told -It has to be taken for granted or -supposed- to be like that because there is no scientific explanation for it, or more primitive source of cause that can be discerned. In your words- Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Apr. 1, 2012 @ 06:35 GMT "For any theory of reality there is a starting assumption required that is inexplicable. That is the "miracle" in question."

James clarified further that it represents the purification of physics down to a singular cause. James Putnam replied on Apr. 2, 2012 @ 00:53 GMT " My purpose for the use of the word miracle, is to make two things clear. One is that only one miracle should be tolerable in the scientific development of theoretical physics." OK that gives a good reason for the choice of such a controversial word. To me that sounds like the word is emblematic of the quest and so represents something different from how its understood in everyday speech. Thought i'd got it. But apparently not. I will not ask you to explain the word further but just accept it as one of life's mysteries.

Your precise words to me when I mentioned that "the cause" might be eternal were Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Apr. 1, 2012 @ 17:36 GMT "And without a theory of particles, just saying "eternal" does not explain a thing. It is a mental "sweeping under the rug" of the problem." I tried to paint a mental picture of that -Before anything else is laid down (blank sheet of paper analogy) motion will create particles (drawing ink). Probably the 'picture' I can see from your explanation is not the one you are imagining. So it is offensive to you. I was careful to say GP"That seemed to be what Edwin was implying" not -that is what Edwin was implying.It was my impression clearly presented as my impression not your own words. So open to the possibility of being mis-comprehension. I am sorry that I have so grossly misunderstood your explanations. I was mistaken in thinking that taking the time to consider what you both might mean would be appreciated.

I can understand wanting the egg before the chicken, but is it so offensive to suggest there have been a chicken all along, that can also be considered? Maybe it is. I'm not you and don't think like you. Just because I'm expressing an opinion it does not mean that I'm saying you are wrong.I'm considering what is being said to me and giving feedback.Now I think that perhaps it has nothing to do with how the universe -first- came to be "that other miracle" and that confusion is causing offence. But you said Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Apr. 1, 2012 @ 06:35 GMT "I don't "think" a beginning is necessary, but if I assume that to be the case I can account for everything that I know of, from elementary particles, to humans, to galaxies, with a theory of physics." Which dare I say sounds to me like the assumption of a beginning. I realise now that I must not even consider what you or James say and must not speak of it. Then there can be no possibility of offence.I will say no more about it and not mention your name again.

I preferred miracle referring to that which can never be known, because as we are part of reality, there will always come a point when our ability to know objectively, from a metaphysical not practical standpoint, comes to a stop. And at that point we can only invoke the 'one miracle'. Otherwise, what we have are either verified, but unexplainable occurrences, or verified occurrences that actually do not occur as per the explanation, or occurrences that do not occur, but are just an outcome of the explanation. And I would prefer unjustified abstraction, rather than theory. Because the latter tends to carry the connotation of proven abstraction, ie not hypothesis/guess, and at some point some abstraction is necessary, otherwise all one can have is discrete facts.

But it is only terminology. And you are obviously correct in the overall point that anything which is not verified as existent, albeit within the confines of existence as we can know it, must be expunged from a scientific enterprise.

The definition of miracle is straight from the dictionary. I tightened it up to remove religious and magic trick considerations. The term miracle has been applied only to the concept of cause in the context of theoretical physics. The subject is the removal of invented causes from theoretical physics, and, the setting up of guidelines, the purpose of which is to prevent theorists from changing equations from models of empirical evidence into models of their imaginations. It is restricted to the mechanical ideology inherent in theoretical physics.

If a reader has preferred theoretical or procedural pre-conceptions, then the subject of these messages may seem too odd for their consideration. No one's theory is adopted. No attempts to explain the existence of life and intelligence are included. The words are my choice and express my thoughts. The goal is to restore and protect the empirical integrity of physics equations. The procedure is presented as being workable and capable of producing meaningful results.

that was succinct and to the point and far more helpful than asking questions and then invalidating the attempted answers provided repeatedly.I have in the past endured very long discussions with you, where just about everything I have said has been invalidated because it did not fit acceptably with your own model of physics. You could very easily have put the correspondent out of misery with a clear statement like that. As you have never had any intention of reaching any kind of compromise or finding any common ground but would eliminate the worth of any viewpoint but your own. It has been a pretty cruel and time consuming guessing game that I had given up playing.

It also overcomes a lot of misconception of the terms miracle and intelligence which have been the subject of many discussions with various contributors.Who have had and used different understandings of those particular words of choice. Again very clear explanation of how the terms are being used could have prevented protracted misunderstanding and antagonism.I don't much care for I'm right so your wrong either, which why I have tried to find a way of accommodating what I (thought I) could grasp of this veiwpoint into my own way of thinking.I can understand the concept of scale over which existence is spread and that a motion exists over all scales. That is compatible and therefore not a matter of contention for me.

I wish you luck in presenting your work here in a way that is clear, accessible and makes people interested in finding out more about it.Rather than driving them away. So that it gets a wider audience who may find it highly relevant and inspiring, and possibly useful to them.

The goal of these messages is to restore and protect the empirical integrity of physics equations. Though no one knows what cause is, it still must be represented properly in physics equations. So where would one go to begin to do this? Go to the empirical evidence. That is where the best, most complete information is revealed. The empirical evidence will be the guide back to reality.

Begin at the beginning. Let the empirical evidence determine the interpretation of f=ma. There are two causes right there. One is the cause for acceleration. The other is the cause for regulating the acceleration. The empirical evidence is there also as acceleration. Add nothing to that equation, and, let acceleration define f and m for us.

Perhaps both are different aspects of a single fundamental cause; but, if that is the case let acceleration show that to us. This an example of beginning to go to the empirical evidence to learn how to restore physics equations back to their empirical form.

This approach is introduced first for the mechanical perspective. Its results will apply only to the mechanical interpretation of the universe. That is a worthwhile effort. Later, when one wishes to learn about life and intelligence, we have to return to the empirical evidence again to let it guide us again to new solutions. The solutions will be different because the empirical evidence will be different.

Carrying on from my point about terminology/labelling. You said: "Though no one knows what cause is, it still must be represented properly in physics equations". What physical phenomenon, which you label 'cause', does this relate to. Or is it the abstracted form of 'physical phenomena which have an influence in an outcome'(or words to that effect). In this sentence the phenomenon known as 'cause', appears, at least given the words, to have a metaphysical existence and perhaps be related to 'miracle'. Whilst below that, 'cause' is used in the 'normal' way, ie it relates to the physical phenomenon(a) which influenced a change in mommentum.

The point here is that any representational device (be it word, graphic, maths) must correspond to a proven existent phenomenon. While the meaning should be discernable from the context, utilising labels which have a close 'everyday' meaning, helps. And of coure all this occurs within the confines of physical reality as known to us. So making "No attempts to explain the existence of life and intelligence" is only valid in the sense that what 'really' occurs can never be known (one just accepts a 'miracle', or that it occurs, or whatever). Understanding, a priori, how reality occurs for us, is fundamental to the avoidance of the sort of misconceptions (false introduction of hypotheses) that you refer to.

Your first message was a teaching message very repetitive on one point that you obviousl feel very strongly about. Please teach others. In your second message you mention two points where you have incorrectly described what I am doing. My use of the word cause is consistant. It means what it says. It says what I mean. Your have not understood the purpose of my statement regarding life and intelligene. That statement applies only to the context of these messages and is made necessary by the limits inherent in physics theory. I stated why this is necessary in those messages. I have written about it many times before this. You missed it. My words are accurate and chosen purposefully. We happen to speak and think differently. Your conclusions don't fit with mine. That is ok. This is the place for one to express their views freely.

“This is the place for one to express their views freely”. Indeed. But also to answer questions when properly asked about them. Your “use of the word cause” might be “consistent”. It might “means what it says [and] says what I mean”. However, as per my post above, in the context of your sentence quoted, what is it?

“Your have not understood the purpose of my statement regarding life and intelligence”. Assuming this is a correct statement, then what is this “purpose”?

And what are the two points that “you have incorrectly described what I am doing”? And indeed, what are you actually doing, other than endeavouring to proceed in a correct manner without pre-supposition?

A better response would have been to answer my question, rather than yet another attempt at a ‘put down’. I note Georgina’s most recent post.

"A better response would have been to answer my question, rather than yet another attempt at a ‘put down’. I note Georgina’s most recent post."

I will judge for myself what a good response is. Your views are welcome. As far as being lectured to by you, I really don't wan't to go through it. You rarely ask questions. You tell others. My views are different from yours. My writing style is different from yours. My ways of expressing myself are different from yours. My knowledge of science and physics is different from yours. I don't think there is any point in my explaining what I think to you. You don't follow it. You have your own strict guidelines for judging correctness and you stick with them. Fine, they are not mine. I will stick with mine and I do not want to go through unfruitful never ending discussions. There are others to teach.

leaving aside the precise subtle nuance intended and motives of the vocabulary and accepting that in your view cause is supernatural, the one any only permissible Miracle in science, but not associated with any other Miracle or theory. So not being associated with BB- Which is My understanding of what you have said only and not speaking for you.

I am at the beginning. I have a blank sheet of paper. I have F=MA That equation is all you have provided so far.

I understand that to be existence as mass, a change which is the acceleration. That will either be a change in direction or a change in distance travelled over time.

To be perfectly clear am I to presume from what you have said previously that passage of time and Newtonian? space are just assumed rather than further supernatural givens?

I am not trying to be awkward or ignorant but I just want to be clear what exactly is permitted /accepted at this particular beginning. What is my blank sheet of paper, the beginning on which I have F=MA?

IE Does the Miracle of existence and change of velocity come with Newtonian space and the passage of time, all part of the same and only supernatural Miracle? Just to be clear.I can not make any assumptions as I might be wrong.

At the moment it seems to me that on the one side there is your viewpoint ,which from what you have said seems -to me- to give primacy/supremacy of empirical evidence over any other any consideration. Which I accept could be a misunderstanding upon my part and no intention to misrepresent you is being made. On the other side -it seems to me- there are viewpoints such as this-

Empirical- Wikipedia "Thomas Kuhn[2] has promoted the concept that these methods are influenced by prior beliefs and experiences. Consequently it cannot be expected that two scientists when observing, experiencing, or experimenting on the same event will make the same theory-neutral observations. The role of observation as a theory-neutral arbiter may not be possible. Theory-dependence of observation means that, even if there were agreed methods of inference and interpretation, scientists may still disagree on the nature of empirical data."

"IE Does the Miracle of existence and change of velocity come with Newtonian space and the passage of time, all part of the same and only supernatural Miracle? Just to be clear.I can not make any assumptions as I might be wrong."

If you want answers from me then ask your questions with some respect. If your goal is to make me out to be a fool, then move on please.

Mass itself might not necessarily be regarded as as separate existence of something in itself but an outcome inseparable from the process. But the mind does break everything up into discreet entities with mass for the purpose of understanding and communicating. So how am I to regard it at this beginning? Discreet existence Miracle or product of process Miracle that formed it? Both or neither, or will that become clear as you explain, or is it another total irrelevance?

Your transgression was to tell someone else what My ideas mean. You can tell me I am wrong anytime you want. I do not mind that. What I mind is having to check your messages just in case I have to clean up after you. Now take a hike.

I'm afraid our posts crossed. That last posts was what -I think about mass myself- and asking what you are considering mass to be at the outset of your explanation.As I did not want to make the wrong assumption. IE which of those assumptions about mass are made or is F=MA an orphan equation with no context -and- no prior meaning of the terms at all.

Have a happy Happy Easter.

I am sorry for paying attention to what you have to say, rather than ignoring you as if you are an idiot with nothing worthwhile to say. I do hope you will go on to explain what you are doing. I'm going to take a hike. It will be a pleasure.

"{I am sorry for paying attention to what you have to say, rather than ignoring you as if you are an idiot with nothing worthwhile to say. I do hope you will go on to explain what you are doing. I'm going to take a hike. It will be a pleasure.

The point her is that, to use your words, there is no 'blank sheet of paper'. Reality occurs, we are part of it. So,how this came about in the first place we can never know, we can only explain it from an intrinsic perspective, and up to a point (ie then invoke 'miracle'). Within that inherent constraint, reality exists, it is not an abstract concept/blank sheet of paper, it manifests via a known process and has a discenable logical form.

As you know, much to your regret at times! I do respond to questions/queries but am now going away for a week. It's a surprise for my patrner, she is 60 this month.

I don't want to say any more about this topic because I have already caused too much offence because of various misunderstandings. Demonstrating that I have feelings too and that respect is a two way street probably hasn't helped either. The blank piece of paper was just the beginning waiting for what comes next. Either James will get on with his lesson or he will not.But I'm going to enjoy my hike and hopefully find some amiable people to converse with.

does a simulation have to be isomorphic to the reality it is simulating or can there be significant differences that would not be readily apparent? It does not have to contain correspondence to all of the information of the original, and it can vary significantly and still be plausibly real IMHO.

The observer's reality is generated by the visual cortex and other parts of the brain from sensory input, memory and other brain function. The whole of the visual field is not scanned systematically but the eyes roam over the field providing information to update the observed image. Which means most of what is being observed is provided by retention of previously generated output filling in gaps in the new output. Gaps can also be filled by imagination as shown by the blind spot demonstration, extending the known data to fill the unknown area. So far less data goes into the simulation than in the reality simulated. Not because it is compacted but because it is omitted but then filled in again with an approximation of what might be there. The way in which the visual system filters and amalgamates data is interesting and relevant too IMHO.

More isn't always better. There has to be a balance between enough data to be aware of the surroundings and navigate successfully and the energy requirement of data processing. Too much information could be detrimental to function, overloading the processing capability or demanding too much energy. The brain being very energy hungry. I can't see the advantage right now of as much data as possible,"quantizing" to fit every little piece in and loose nothing from the original at all, just for the purpose of a simulation.

I know it doesn't quite fit the bill as something more exotic but at least its getting back to the idea of most efficient memory storage.Is the question really about the simulation ability or just the memory?

Perimeter institute outreach, black hole cafes, "The world as a hologram". Speakers Richard Epp and Robert Meyers.

Gives an very easy introduction to the ideas of the universe possibly being holographic.Interesting. Talked about data being stored in the frequencies, intensities and polarisations of photons. The talk included the maximum amount of information storage possible. Really good point was stressed, that information is not just abstract but has to have a concrete form in which it exists. So there is a physical maximum that can be stored. The calculation was based on energy and mass being equivalent and so energy storage would have a mass itself which could only rise up to a maximum before a black hole would form, as a result of the increased gravity- theoretically. That able to fit into a sphere before the mass becomes a black hole turns out to be related to surface area rather than volume.

Then the talk seems to concentrate on black holes themselves which seems less relevant to the world as a hologram theme. Seems to me the hologram bit is just another part of the entirety of reality and not in itself everything. So the talk of people possibly being 2 dimensional beings who are also 3 dimensional was a bit bizarre. But that the data to recreate images of 3 dimensional objects only needs a 2 dimensional surface to exist upon, which could form the surface of a sphere is interesting.And IMHO relevant to a data pool existing in the external reality environment, part of what I have been referring to as the Object reality.

The tiniest thing that can be several things at once would give the maximum memory storage, and the photon which can have a number of attributes seems to fit the bill. Even though the observer can only extract one bit of the information with a single receptor, not multiple bits of information. Its intensity or frequency not both.- It makes me wonder what else is really small and can be several things at once. How small would it have to be to only fill up the space that could denote a one or zero in a computer now?

Something with several surfaces that could be exposed, shape ?or potential colours,a chemical "code" ie absorbs or reflects photons of different frequencies? This might mimic what happens in nature. The EM data from which the biological simulation can be formed is the product of photon interaction with the material reality, reflection or absorption from surfaces will give on/off (light/dark)and then also a frequency (colour), polarisation(potential holographic image) and intensity (strength).

I think in memory storage, it's not so much bits as coding for the receptors. In any process effective complexity builds up through feedback loops, more than just bulk storage. Minds might work like computers, but brains are far more evolved and complex, with multiple layers of subconscious perception.

Also in the brain the information is stored in such a way that it can be accessed from many different routes. Which are actual neurons. If one route is lost another might be used to activate a memory.A smell perhaps instead of a name. Connections grow and other unused connections are lost. Does a good job fabricating alternative realities as dreams too. Have a Happy Easter.

Actually it only tells us we don't know what causes the outer spirals of galaxies to spin as fast as the inner spirals.

We assume it's due to gravitational attraction from unknown sources, but wouldn't external pressure cause this? What if "space" expands, but the universe doesn't, possibly because it is infinite and sufficiently energetic? So the only effect would be additional external pressure on these gravity wells?

I will take you as our dark matter expert. Do ALL galaxies contain what scientists call dark matter? Since galaxies don't collapse into the center, we can infer that the force of gravity due to the galactic center and inner star clusters is balanced by the centripetal motion equation:

. If we solve for velocity, we get

But the mass get's greater as you get further away from the galactic center. OK, I admit, I'm not a cosmologist. I'll have to ask: what is the velocity profile v (r) supposed to be?

Peel back the expert part as well. It simply occurred to me some years ago that rather than a halo of dark matter, external pressure might be a possibility. Since it has been my contention that while intergalactic space, or at least the radiant energy defining it, is expanding, the universe as a whole isn't, since this expansion is balanced by gravitational contraction, resulting in the overall flat space observed.

Mass and energy are equivalent, but radiant energy inherently expands, in much the same way as mass inherently contracts. What if photons/quanta of light, are not point particles in space, but expand to fill space holographically and it is only when they are absorbed that they collapse?

Say we have a convection cycle of expanding radiation and collapsing mass. Obviously mass breaks down/burns off as radiation and radiation is absorbed by mass. What if, under specific conditions, such as at very low energy levels, say 3.7k, radiation spontaneously contracted into particle form? Say neutrinos, or something not yet detected. Since it contracted, it would take up less space, but more importantly, the space it had occupied would have vacuum. Thus pulling these particles together, creating a form of gravitational effect. Now taking the convection analogy farther, say these initial particles cause more radiation to condense out, like rain falling through clouds. Remember atoms absorbing photons? Thus creating an ever stronger vacuum.

Now gravity fields have been measured out something like ten times the size of the observable galaxies. What if it isn't so much these vortices are pulling in this intergalactic gas, but the vacuum being created by the formation of this gas, out of radiation, is creating the vortices? That would certainly explain why the outer spirals spin as fast as the inner ones.

When the wheel on my truck spins around, the molecules on the outer part spin at the same angular rate as the molecules near the axle. I haven't looked at the data, but if the outer stars spin at the same angular rate as the inner stars, then I would be looking at the gravity between stars such that the galaxy rotates like a solid object (like a wheel on a car). But like I said, I havne't looked at the data.

I don't think it's the same angular momentum, or the outer parts would have far greater velocity than the inner areas. It's just that they do have angular momentum and are not spinning off into space, given the amount of observed mass and thus gravitational attraction.

As I've argued ad nauseam I see time as effect of action, the changing configuration of what exists, turning future into past, not a vector from past to future. So the geometry of spacetime can only be correlation of duration and distance, not causation of the effect of gravity.

So what causes this effect we refer to as gravity? If light in a vacuum isn't a point particle and only contracts into elemental forms of mass/gas, creating a spatial vacuum, the collapse of this would also face the headwinds of radiation expanding back out from galaxies. Thus distorting the path of light, as in frequency shifting and bending, which then imparts the rotational action on the collapsing particles of mass.

The point being, there would be no concern these outer parts would spin off into space, since it is their collapse creating this spin in the first place.

The rotational speed of a galaxy, according to wiki, galaxies are observed to have a flat rotation curve.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_rotation_problem

I think this means that the stars within the galaxy exert gravitational forces on each other. The result is that the galaxy rotates like one object (like a record on a record player or a wheel on a car). The stars exert gravity on each other in a similar way that molecules exert attractive forces on each other in the record or the tire.

As I read it, "flat rotation curve" means "constant speed." Though with the galaxies with a more even distribution, rather than a normal bulge in the center, it does slope up from center to edge. So the inner stars would do faster rotations, because their orbits are smaller. The point being this speed doesn't drop off nearly as fast as it does for planets around stars, the further of which would presumably be spun off into space if they had velocities the inner planets need to keep from falling into their star.

Since this exchange caused me to consider an implication I hadn't previously focused on, I thought I might repeat it;

I've argued there is a basic convection cycle of expanding radiation and contracting mass. Obviously when mass is converted into energy, it is characterized by expansion. Think nuclear explosion.

While I've focused on explaining redshift as an effect of the expansion of radiation, it might be interesting to consider the relationship between mass and gravity. We think of it as simply a fundamental property of mass, but if mass turning into energy results in expansion, then is the opposite true; does energy turning into mass cause contraction? The idea being that gravity is not so much an effect of mass, but an effect of the creation of mass? So what would be causing the additional spin is not so much the existence of dark matter, but the creation of matter.

Currently it's assumed most mass is produced within stars, where fusion is possible, but what about the near absolute zero of intergalactic space? Could this affect the charge of protons? Do we know where all forms of neutrinos come from?

I think physics will eventually decide the geometry of spacetime as cause of gravity has it backward and they will have to find an explanation based on physical processes, not mathematical equations.

You said, "I think physics will eventually decide the geometry of spacetime as cause of gravity has it backward and they will have to find an explanation based on physical processes, not mathematical equations."

"Geometry of space-time" is the accepted terminology. Using very careful, very clever wording, the physics community can avoid words like "light bearing aether". In spite of whatever occult connations one associates with the word "aether", an aether or medium suggests the physical existence of something that behaves like a space-time time continuum, behaves like a quantum vacuum.

In contrast, words like "geometry of space-time", which are accepted by the physics establishment, lead you to think of angles, lines, dots and other mathematical symbols. It misleads physicists into believing that all of the answers are in the math...alone.

Theoretical physicists refuse to look beyond the math symbols, they refuse to go back to the source of all physics,...nature itself.

Math as dogma presents an interesting quandary. You would think though, that with all the accumulated fantasy patches; inflation, string theory, multiworlds, multiverses, singularities, wormholes, blocktime, dark matter, dark energy, super symmetry, etc. there would be some consideration for rewriting the entire program. You are in the computer industry. If you have a system this buggy, would you keep patching it, or throw it in the round file and go back to the drawing board? It's time to throw away the duck tape and super glue and bring out the hammers and chisels. Quit adding on and start chopping away.

I'm actually in the high end electronics industry; I troubleshoot the most accurate oscilloscopes in the world.

http://www.tek.com/oscilloscope/dpo-dsa-mso70000

You asked: "If you have a system this buggy, would you keep patching it, or throw it in the round file and go back to the drawing board? "

My answer would be: come up with a new capability. Come up with something marketable. I don't care how peicemeal, how patchy or ad hoc it is, but come up with a warp engine. Come up with something that will explode the economy into vast new growth. Come up with something that can be experimentally verified. Come up with something that will supercharge everyone with excitement about the future.

In my industry, it's not about how pretty the math is, it's always about results.

You of all people know that there are *vested interests* about each of these "fantasy patches; inflation, string theory, multiworlds, multiverses, singularities, wormholes, blocktime, dark matter, dark energy, super symmetry, etc." And not one of them is interested in cancelling out the years of work they have invested in their area. Jason's response is a marketing oriented response from someone who has real customers. But the customers of the proponents of the areas you mention are the captive taxpayers, and so they need only a federal patron.

You know that. Were you just daydreaming?

Edwin Eugene Klingman

PS. I don't intend to jump into this conversation, but I couldn't resist.

Edwin said, "PS. I don't intend to jump into this conversation, but I couldn't resist. "

Too late, you're in the conversation now. :D

The people who pick up science magazines to read articles are customers; people who buy books about their favorite topic in physics are customers. Warp drive physics would interest a lot of people. If you want to sell books, that's fine.

But if you want to develop a war drive theory that is founded on experiments, then you have to look for another way to warp space-time besides the stress-energy tensor. In effect, you have to add another term to the Einstein equations, and then perform an experiment to see if you guessed right. This is the good old brute force approach.

The problem is that this approach is physics blasphemy. Physicists have a deep and very old hatred of alchemy, and have learned to avoid any approach to physics that is creative or intuitive.

Not only are there vested interests, but far more importantly, most of those engaged in this are true believers in much of it. What reputable theoretical physicist would question spacetime as causation, rather than modeling correlations between durations and distance, with C as the relationship. Without it as causation, the notion of an expanding universe lacks theoretical...

Not only are there vested interests, but far more importantly, most of those engaged in this are true believers in much of it. What reputable theoretical physicist would question spacetime as causation, rather than modeling correlations between durations and distance, with C as the relationship. Without it as causation, the notion of an expanding universe lacks theoretical foundation. Even you believe in that. Not to mention blocktime, wormholes and all the warping of space which Jason depends for his warp drives. If time is simply an emergent effect of action, like temperature, being the changing configuration of what exists, rather than a foundational fourth dimension along which all events permanently reside, then there is no physical basis for space to bend, warp, expand, contract, etc. Mass, energy and the measurements thereof then only describe and define space, not create it, as it is has no physical properties other than infinite equilibrium. That would be why the speed of light is constant and motion through it slows clockrates, thus sustaining a constant "measure."

Maybe I'm wrong and there really is this supernatural geometry, but would anyone risk their career even considering it? Julian Barbour has been one of the few willing to really examine the nature of time over the last generation and he had to go outside the system in order to do so. Though his views still remain within sight of the mainstream.

Personally I also have interests, but they are far more in the sociological implication of how civilization views time. That linear narrative, Newton's absolute flow from past to future, is foundational to our sense of who we are, but it is also very reductionistic, especially in the context of monolithic and monotheistic paradigms, where everyone is supposed to be reading from the same script and moving in the same direction, rather than a non-linear, emergent concept, where we are all singular narrative threads in a dynamic tapestry.

Safe to say, I don't expect very many people to follow my thinking on this, but that's the cost of going off script. There are quite a few paradigms though, religious, political, economic and yes, even physical theory, which are going to hit a wall and can no longer be sustained, but it might be years away. In fact, an economic crisis could serve to sustain current physics for longer than it might otherwise last. Would epicycles have survived 1500 years, if 1000 of them hadn't been the dark ages?

Safe to say, I'm sticking to the day jobs.

Jason,

What if light is fundamentally holographic and photons are just a crude measure of what atomic structure absorbs? That would mean there is potentially incredible amounts of information carried by every quanta of light. Would you suppose developing a system to access that information might have far more uses than trying to create a technology out of math concepts developed a century ago, based on very limited understanding of nature, which might well have some serious bugs in it, such as treating the narrative sequence as being foundational? Then again, if you break the current limits on understanding light, you could code a whole spaceship as a hologram, with you as its software........

You correctly state that I have my own belief. As noted elsewhere, if I assume that a phenomenon that we call the big bang occurred, then my model seems to make sense of more microscopic, macroscopic, quantum mechanical and even biological 'reality' than any other model, including explaining all known particles without a Higgs or SUSY or extra dimensions or extra universes. I do not claim to understand how or why the big bang occurred, any more than anyone else can explain how or why 'eternal space' exists. That is why I agree with James that one must start with a "miracle" or event or phenomenon outside of physics, and then develop physics from that point or basic assumption. I have no problem with your starting anywhere that you like, but one should, in my opinion, show how starting from one's chosen point one can accurately explain the world we know today, and predict things that have not yet been seen. Since there are always alternative ways to explain almost anything that we're aware of, the key test is predicting new things based on one's model. If the prediction comes true, then the model deserves more respect than alternative explanations that predict nothing, such as most of the "fantasy patches" you mention.

My starting point will always be "the world we know today." Any other would be an assumption.

It is only in peeling away the layers of this world; society, history, philosophy, psychology, etc. that I get down to basic physical processes. Then find the discipline rife with all the complex, cumulative issues permeating all those other conceptual lenses.

You speak as if, by starting with "the world we know today" you **avoid** making an assumption. I think you are wrong, and I think my last comment covers this point. In my opinion, one either believes that physical experiments are important, and predictions of experiments are important or else it just boils down to who is the best talker. And if one talks without reference to physical experiments, as in many of the fantasy patches, then one depends on fancy footwork, and hopefully one has tenure, so that nothing need be produced other than fancy footwork.

But I've already put more time than I planned into this conversation, and we both know that neither of us is going to influence the other, so I'll sign off now. I always enjoy your take on things.

I agree with Edwin. However, everything that follows is only my opinion: I started my quest with economics and felt that I needed to read the textbooks and supplimentary materials of all those other social disciplines to learn what our political system needed to best survive. I decided years into it that those disciplines were guided, I could say distorted, by ideology and that the fundamental ideology that contributed to distorting the other disciplines was the mechanical ideology of theoretical physics. So here I am today trying to begin the process of understanding all those other disciplines without their ideological distortions by first removing ideology from theoretical physics.

I think we've all said it in different ways. It's all about getting experimental results. The real arbiter of what is truly real is nature herself. Mathematics is a useful tool, but it's still just a tool. I don't need a million dollar hammer to drive a nail; I can use a rock to get the same result.

Your observation that the "world we live in" is also an assumption brings to mind Feynman's comment about Einstein having his head in the clouds and his feet on the ground, but most other people have to chose one or the other. I would argue that "feet on the ground" means "the world we know today."

I've gone on at some length, especially with Paul somewhat recently, about how perspective is inherently subjective. There is no God's eye view, because information tends to cancel out, just as energy tends to cancel out. So one must assume some point of view in order to make any judgement. The problem, as I see it, is to take a particular frame too seriously and lose sight of other views. Such as making the assumption the effectiveness of math means it is fundamental to nature, rather than a distillation of patterns in nature. It is the map, rather than the territory. We all make assumptions, but they are based on our experience of this world we live in. Which was my point that this "wwli" is my "starting point."

"I've gone on at some length, especially with Paul somewhat recently, about how perspective is inherently subjective. There is no God's eye view, "

That approach to reality is based on "I know as well as anyone", and it may be right. But if there is any value to be found in "the wisdom of the commons", then one must give credence to logic, and mathematics, which is the exercise of logic, and one must agree that "talking a good line" has to take a back seat to mathematical argument, and that has to take a back seat to arguments and predictions that actually match experience as documented by experiments.

The dichotomy of expertise vs. generalization applies to the whole range of endeavor. The more focused your attention, the greater the feedback loops with your field of study and this magnifies your knowledge of detail in a parabolic fashion, over others not as devoted. The use of generalization is that it networks different areas of specialization into ever larger functions. When businesses get outside consultants, frequently it is to inject different questions and perspectives into the mix, not because these outsiders know more about that business's core functions. Obviously the Catholic Church doesn't go to outside consultants for advice, but it has reasons for not wanting any.

I certainly don't know how many parallelized spheres it takes to define whatever it is that parallelized spheres explain, but as yet, in all the years I've been here, not one of the experts here has been able to answer my very simple question as to why it is better to model time as a foundational vector, thus explaining the past to future narrative, as opposed a changing dynamic present, in which it is the events going future to past. My impression as for my this question goes unanswered is because it raises issues about some rather foundational concepts and there is no desire to do that.

Yes, they are philosophers, but entirely germane to my point to Edwin that specialization does create blind spots. Otherwise technocrats would be running the world and not just working for the political generalists.

In the army, the people running things are called generals, while specialist is a rank somewhere between private and corporal. Of course armies deal with unpredictability, not deterministic theory.

Talking about the verification principle, doctrine of the Logical Positivists who aimed to purify science of, in particular, metaphysical and theological ideas that could not be verified in principle. 'People places and things' volume 4 'ideas' 1954 Waverley book company Ltd. London. "All significant utterances must be, it was claimed, either analytic propositions , the truth of which depends wholly and entirely on the meaning of the words they comprise, or synthetic factual propositions the truth of which depends solely on what is, as a matter of fact, the case in the non linguistic world."

I would like to emphasise ;1. the -meaning- of words!!! 2. what is -as a matter of fact-.

"People, places and things" volume 4 'ideas' 1954 Waverley book company Ltd. London. "This contention was a modernized version of ......Hume's Fork "All the objects of human reason or enquiry may be naturally divided into two kinds , to wit, Relations of Ideas and Matters of fact"

IMHO Science that seeks to deal only with mathematical analysis of matters of fact but has dismissed the importance of the relation of ideas (as mere philosophy which is now considered by many non-science), has lost the ability to explain, because it is in the correct relationships of ideas, informed by the facts, that correct meaning exists. Not in separate facts divorced from the rest of reality. Or separate theories, induced or developed from matters of fact, in isolation from the greater reality, which would have enabled the correct interpretation and so "alignment" of various theories to be found.

The frame in which an explanation is given is important. Different frames can lead to different descriptions of the same thing. John made an important observation IMHO. Professor Leonard Susskind in the Stanford University lectures on Classical mechanics, available as learning resources via FQXi says "First of all I want you to assume that time evolves continuously." and then goes on to explain various other assumptions about time for the purpose of the mechanical description.It isn't taken for granted that there can be no other assumptions and so it is not worth mentioning.

The medical term for the condition is autism; an obsessive focus on detail, with a corresponding inability to synthesize any integrated perspective of the whole. So we have multiworlds, multiverses and string theory, where every possibility is valid. Then they turn around and say philosophy is not rigorous!!!!

Nope, but then I didn't have that option, having removed most of a kneecap as a teenager. I do have at least three generals in the extended family though. One, General John Franklin, as a Lt. in WW1, was Eisenhower's aide, who was a captain at the time. The local Guard air base is named after my uncle, Edwin Warfield. My father flew off carriers WW2. His brother was a paratrooper. The war stories around the family would get long, but most were told when I was too young to remember.

I had a half uncle who was only four years older than me, who was in the airforce for twenty. A-10's and Harriers as an exchange with the British. When we were kids, I would have been about six, so he would have been about ten. He had this big army set and one time when we were out playing, I noticed that I had all the neat stuff, with the guns on them, while he had the radio, supply trucks, etc. So I asked him why I got to play with the fun stuff. He told me it was because he was telling me what to do. I was a lesson that stuck with me ever since, the people with the power are not the ones carrying the guns.

The purpose of my comment was not to question your patriotism or your family's contribution to the national defense (which is impressive! thanks for sharing)-- it was to falsify your statement that " ... armies deal with unpredictability, not deterministic theory."

This is a subject to which I can respond on personal authority, because as a U.S. Navy Vietnam veteran serving with an amphibious assault group, and for the last ten years as a civilian in U.S. Army logistics supporting our war effort -- I know that military strategies are based firmly on predictability of battlefield events and contingencies. We invest considerable resources in intelligence and realistic game theory to assure that outcome. The whole idea of a strategy is to create as robust a network of resources and assets as possible to anticipate and meet all contingencies.

You're absolutely right that " ... the people with the power are not the ones carrying the guns." Any combat veteran who isn't "crazzy" will tell you that all soldiers want to do is to get the job done and come home alive. That's why the U.S. military is the most professional in the world -- our soldiers are trained to fight for each other, not for some abstract cause (and certainly not for the generals!); the oath we take is to a Constitution guaranteeing equal liberties and justice, even if it doesn't always work perfectly.

I was curious about that observation, but assumed it was directed at my tendency toward open minded naivete.

Obviously armies are the epitome of organization, but as much as they would like operations to be equally organized, the history of war is one of dealing with the unpredictable. Often times this has been due to the complete myopia of those in charge. As they say, the generals are always fighting the last war. But that goes to my point, since we can only plan for what is known, the ability to respond to the novel can be the key to success.

Consider your statement: "I know that military strategies are based firmly on predictability of battlefield events and contingencies. We invest considerable resources in intelligence and realistic game theory to assure that outcome. The whole idea of a strategy is to create as robust a network of resources and assets as possible to anticipate and meet all contingencies."

Then compare it to the situation in the world today. After getting buried in chaos in Afghanistan and Iraq, due to incredibly poor planning and consideration of conditions, we seem increasingly likely to be drawn into some sort of conflict with Iran. Why? George H. W. Bush had the sense and advice not to topple Saddam after the Gulf War because it would destabilize the region, yet his son's advisers didn't see any problem and sidelined anyone who raised questions. What was the dynamic there that allowed them to only see what they wanted to see? At what point did belief in their own infallibility overcome the objectivity of the first Bush?

There are certain elements in the physics community who see their models as infallible. Are they right, or just blinded by belief? What is that tipping point from well earned confidence into foolish hubris? I suppose crossing the point of this fulcrum is where the path seems most level and the initial slide just provides some well deserved momentum. Now we have multiverses and a bankrupt economy. The devil is hiding in the details.

I thought I'd stick this in as well. General Young and I used to get in long conversations about religion, politics, society, etc. when I was a teenager. He wanted me to join the Jesuits and even lined up an interview with the then bishop of Baltimore, which was quite embarrassing, given my tendencies toward questioning authority. One of my many experiences with being dissed off by the powers that be. So you might understand why my skin is so thick.

I don't want to get into a political discussion in a physics forum. Suffice to say that while the leadership of our military is constitutionally (and wisely) in civilian hands, we have to take the dunderheads along with the wise leadership. Not ideal, but a lot better than the alternative of military control of the state.

Anyway, you write, "There are certain elements in the physics community who see their models as infallible. Are they right, or just blinded by belief?"

I don't know, I'm just an independent researcher. Does it matter, though? -- often, it isn't that easy to tell blind belief from proven result. Look at the poopstorm on this forum right now over Bell's theorem. Bell proponents are mostly convinced that nonlocality (probabilistic measures, non-determinism) is a natural law. It isn't, and neither do the proponents seem to understand that Bell's theorem is supported only by nonconstructive proofs. We're talking a half century of indoctrination here, into Hilbert space formalism and algebraic calculations -- Lysenkoist biology and Larmarckism should have been so lucky to survive this long; we might all be speaking Russian by now. Overthrowing old notions isn't easy, yet it does happen.

"What is that tipping point from well earned confidence into foolish hubris?"

The experimental falsification of the hubris. Popper's principle requires the independence of mathematical theory and physical result, which means the theory has to be constructed as a logically closed judgement, i.e., self contained without internal contradictions.

"I suppose crossing the point of this fulcrum is where the path seems most level and the initial slide just provides some well deserved momentum. Now we have multiverses and a bankrupt economy."

Now John -- you're setting up a false dichotomy. There is no demonstrable relation between the theory of quantum mechanics that allows a multiverse, and a bankrupt economy.

" which means the theory has to be constructed as a logically closed judgement, i.e., self contained without internal contradictions."

For example, would a theory of expanding space, which assumed an otherwise stable speed of light, be an internal contradiction? Assuming the galaxies are moving apart, such that it would take light that much longer to cross the distance in between, would seem to imply that the space as defined by C is not expanding, only that there is increased distance between said galaxies. So how can it be argued that space is expanding, when the most basic measure of intergalactic space is assumed to be otherwise stable and it is against this basic measure that the supposed expansion is to be measured?

"For example, would a theory of expanding space, which assumed an otherwise stable speed of light, be an internal contradiction?"

Not necessarily. This known as The Horizon Problem and there are various theories (yes, I realize you call them "patches") to overcome it. John, as much as I would love (not :-) ) to get into a technical discussion with you, the running gun battle I'm in over Joy's framework doesn't leave me the time right now.

(Incidentally, though, I am convinced -- actually, I've worked it through but am not ready to discuss it -- that Joy's research obviates the horizon problem.)

Yes, our discussions don't seem to go far. Though there would be no horizon problem if the universe is eternal. That background radiation would be light shifted completely off the visible spectrum; the solution to Olber's paradox. Its smoothness might be due stability/phase transition conditions at 2.7k.

Not only can't we experiment on light in intergalactic space, but we can't even experiment on it in isolation from mass. Until then I guess we will just have to assume the rather crude option that those galaxies are simply moving away. Proportional to distance of course. Something which would be quite normal as a lensing effect, but if we whistle loudly, the patches blend in.

It really has sunk in now that the space-time output reality is the map. The dimensional structure is artificially imposed. I've been thinking of Einstein's infinite number of spaces in relative motion, at the same time as motion within space, within space, within space due to the scales of things. Then it gets impossibly complicated to keep track of what is doing what -dizzying. So though Newtonian space works well for classical mechanics and space-time works well for gravity and other significant accelerations they are no good for really getting to grips with what is happening at a foundational level to produce the input for that observed reality.

.............................................................

This is just interesting, especially the words "a deeper structure as a starting point"

Wikipedia:Basil Hiley: Implicate orders, prespace and algebraic structures, ......."The notion of another order underlying space was not new. Along similar lines, both Gerard 't Hooft and John Archibald Wheeler, questioning whether space-time was the appropriate starting-point for describing physics, had called for a deeper structure as starting point, and Wheeler had proposed a notion of pre-space which he called pregeometry, from which spacetime geometry should emerge as a limiting case. Bohm and Hiley underline Wheeler's view, yet point out they do not build on the notion of a foam-like structure as proposed by Wheeler and by Stephen Hawking.[53] Bohm and Hiley, instead, worked together towards a representation of the implicate order in form of an appropriate algebra or other pre-space. They considered spacetime itself as part of an explicit order that is is connected to pre-space as implicit order. The spacetime manifold and properties of locality and non-locality then arise from an order in such pre-space." There is a picture of a sculpture on the page too "Quantum Cloud" by Antony Gormley. Which gives an illustration to the idea.

At the foundational level not only is time reduced to a continuous sequence of arrangements but the arrangements can be reduced to fluctuating and altering relationships of everything to everything else rather than changes within an artificially imposed dimensional framework of space. It might be possible to represent that in a non algebraic form that is able to account for both interaction within a single scale but also across scales. Changing arrangements of groups or systems, groupings, and contents, bonding relationships, separations rather than positions and rotations and vector changes relative to an imposed dimensional structure, which could be more to do with the choice of mathematical formalism rather than the structure of the existing reality.

"I've gone on at some length, especially with Paul somewhat recently, about how perspective is inherently subjective”.

You have indeed! But, what you never seemed to accept is that within a valid closed system, there can be objectivity. We can only know reality as it is manifested to us. We are trapped in a closed sensory loop. We must allow some hypothecation to overcome practical problems resulting from that, but not metaphysical issues. So there is a point at which we cannot know. We must start somewhere, from which what is then proven to exist, given how reality occurs to us, preferably directly but indirect proof has to suffice at times, “accurately explains and predicts” what is.

There is a fundamental misconception regarding information and complexity here. Coins are always two sided. The "state" can only be determined by comparing a coin to some other reference, such as the surface the flipped coin lands on, or, more simply, the angle at which it is observed. Instead of flipping one coin, flip the observer (relocate it relative to the fixed coins). The first system now produces two new observable bits per flip (one for each coin, assuming they are floating in space at a fixed, but random orientation), while the second only produces one.

I moved this quote from 'disproofs' to here so that your conversation with

Richard wouldn't be interrpted:

"...Einstein's model of a universe that is "finite but unbounded" -- when we assume that this means finite in time and unbounded in space, we get singularities -- changing the convention to bounded in space and unbounded in time (Joy's framework) eliminates singularities while preserving all other features of relativity, special and general."

I am not sure how to understand this. I think that my own thoughts may be distracting me. For example, we receive, via photons, information about change of velocity. The two properties involved are length and time. Now and then as a mental exercise, I try to picture the universe if we reversed the roles of length and time. We use velocity as length per unit of time. If the ratio is inverted to time per unit of length how would we see the universe.

For clarification, I see ourselves as receiving information and after processing it our minds form a picture of what it thinks we are seeing. It draws the picture with length visible but time not visible. My exercise involves reversing this so that time is visible but length is not visible. I haven't been able to do it, but I see no reason why a mind couldn't. Whether or not this idea has physical merit, I do think exercises like it have potential for expanding our thought process.

When I look at what you say above, I tend to interpret it through the lens of the example above. I don't think you mean it that way. Could you explain a little more about your quote?

It was always Einstein's intent to get a complete theory of nature free of singularities. He intended general relativity to be a stepping stone to that goal, and never considered the theory physically complete, though it is mathematically complete (i.e., every element of the mathematics corresponds to every element of physical measure in the classical domain). The presence of singularities limits the domain, and therefore the range of the theory is limited; beyond the Planck time, general relativity has nothing to say about what nature is doing.

Before I address your thoughts and questions, please let me try and explain how Joy's framework overcomes that problem. After seeing that Kaluza-Klein theory was a higher dimensional mathematical unification of physical phenomena (though still physically incomplete), Einstein in later years admitted that if there were good physical reasons to add dimensions, mathematical completeness could follow, in principle. Obviously, the biggest obstacle was the formation of singularities. Joy extended the domain to eight dimensions, where the 3 + 1 dimensions of measure space -- i.e., Minkowski space -- is a subset of the space of complete measure functions. (This is well demonstrated in Hestenes' spacetime algebra from which Minkowski space may be derived.)

You ask, " ... I try to picture the universe if we reversed the roles of length and time. We use velocity as length per unit of time. If the ratio is inverted to time per unit of length how would we see the universe."

You would see it as Joy has modeled it -- as a world finite in space and unbounded in time. To explain: consider the result of special relativity, E = mc^2. We don't actually need the c^2 to conclude E = m as anything other than a calculating tool, a mathematical artifact. That constant merely describes the limit of the measure domain, "time per unit of length" as you say, which in the quantum mechanical domain is equal to unity, i.e., 1. E = 1m. In the classical domain of continuous functions, however, judgments of the value of the time metric make a difference, because given that algebraically E - m = 0, velocity of relative metrics described by Lorentz's mathematics, recovers the reality of finite mass by transforming spatial (length) measures to relations of mass to time. All of our measures, as Lamport has made clear, are in a bounded length of time, yet we cannot understand relativity without the assumption of uniformity -- i.e., that physical laws are invariant throughout the universe regardless of the interval of measure, independent of any observer frame. The generalization of relativity gives us a reciprocal relation between mass and spacetime, just as Joy shows in the reciprocal relation between dichotomous variables in a framework of continuous functions -- over the complete bounded domain of S^7.

You do not understand nor the lorentz works, nor them of Maxwell and still less them of Borh or Newton.

Your maths , to you and Joy and friends are a pure joke, a pure fantasy, a pure metaphysics without rationality.A pure joke for the real rationalists and generalists. We are not numerous but we see your stupidities and the rule of a responsible universal scientist is to show you the road of foundamentals.But apparently it is not the case, you do not learn but you continue in your stupid line of reasoning. The opportunism is your torch, I can understand, but your works are so ironical. In fact you do not rerally understand what is the mass and the light, like youi do not really know what is the entropy and its distribution or the uniqueness and its distribution. You speak about things totally unknown for you in fact. How can you ponder a correct work? it seems not possible in fact for you and your friends. A real generalist speaks totally diffrently than your words to you and your friends. Don't compare a water drop with an ocean !

The respect is a thing which is essential when the real respect is respected of course.

Let me see if I can make it a little clearer. Physicists (at least those of a classical bent) are happy to describe reality in no other terms than space and time alone. Until the two of us interacted mutually with Fred Diether on SPF, it wasn't obvious to me that this is what you are trying to do, with a nonstandard approach; Fred’s clarification made it obvious.

Let me see if I can make it a little clearer. Physicists (at least those of a classical bent) are happy to describe reality in no other terms than space and time alone. Until the two of us interacted mutually with Fred Diether on SPF, it wasn't obvious to me that this is what you are trying to do, with a nonstandard approach; Fred’s clarification made it obvious.

Let's go back to what I wrote earlier -- "In the classical domain of continuous functions, however, judgments of the value of the time metric make a difference, because given that algebraically E - m = 0, velocity of relative metrics described by Lorentz's mathematics, recovers the reality of finite mass by transforming spatial (length) measures to relations of mass to time."

What those who haven't studied Einstein's theory stem to stern usually fail to understand, is that E = mc^2 refers to relativistic rest mass. The equation is properly written E_0 = mc^2 -- derived from E = m^2c^4 + p^2c^2, where p represents particle momentum. Because a particle of zero momentum implies negative energy, time enters the equation as a function of particle momentum, and here's where it gets tricky: relativistic rest mass means just what the words imply; a specified mass is only at rest relative to other masses of the same momentum. As Einstein told us ("Geometry and Experience") physical processes paired at some rate at some time will be measured at the identical rate at any later time that a pair measurement is made.

Now let's take two principles on which you insist: 1. The "photon storm." 2. Theorists "made mass an indefinable quantity." These statements used to make no sense to me, but now that I somewhat understand what you are trying to do, I hope to show why you need not fear that theorists are going in the wrong direction.

1a. Photons are timeless because they are massless (as are all bosons). That is, they are always correlated at every time interval to infinity, because once they are entangled, "once" does not differ from "forever." Because every particle in the universe was once entangled with every other, the perception of time as an absolute sequence of events is that “stubbornly persistent illusion” of which Einstein spoke. 2a. It's only half true that theorists made mass an indefinable quantity. In relativity, mass is defined relative to spacetime; in other words, in relativistic point particle (quantum) physics, simultaneity of events is disallowed -- just as in classical (including general relativity) physics. Because “rest mass” is not absolute, and because points of spacetime do not interact simultaneously, energy measured as momentum requires only dimensionless points of measured values to represent mass interacting with a continuum of spacetime (Minkowski space). Here’s the really deep result, though: by a theorem of Hawking, closed timelike curves (CTCs) require negative energy (remember Einstein’s derivation of special relativity with zero particle momentum) – which means that if we include classical time reverse symmetry in any experiment performed in a bounded interval of time (which means ALL physical experiments), we will necessarily get a choice between negative and positive initial condition as a continuous function of the initial condition. That brings us right to the heart of Joy Christian’s framework:

The dichotomous variables as a whole represent opposite handed initial conditions of a continuous sinusoidal function on a spacetime interval of arbitrary magnitude, in which dimensionless mass-energy interaction with points of the continuum shows up as effects that either create dimension or create mass-energy, depending on the initial condition in the physical space of S^7 manifest in the measure space of S^3. If you want to see this in terms of free will, then understand (as Joy has said) that our S^3 measure space is but one of infinite possible Hopf fibrations in the physical space S^7. So whatever choices of initial condition that A and B observers make in the measure space is mediated by what choice * nature * makes in the physical space. In other words, our time interval of experiment is bounded in the measure space (no CTCs), while nature’s decision cannot be made in this bounded interval of time – which is why Leslie Lamport’s result (“Buridan’s Principle” to appear in Found. Phys.) is so important, and why I keep promoting it.

Thank you for your replies. They are valuable to me. I am going through them as well as that 'theory' free experiment you referenced. I am not familiar with some things that you mention and am checking them out as best I can. I am familiar with the contents of your second message. I have an aversion, perhaps wrongly but strongly, to depending upon theory for clarifications. So, I am trying to evaluate it from my perspective as well as making certain that I understand your explanation as it stands. You always present first class information.

You have been very helpful. I appreciate the time you spend answering my questions.

Thanks, James. It was my pleasure, as these exchanges help focus my own thinking. Just one thing, when you look at " ... that 'theory' free experiment ..." (Hans De Raedt) remember my assertion that a theory free experiment leads to errors of the kind that have been promulgated by Florin and Richard. We stay out of that trouble by guaranteeing the independence of mathematical theory and physical result.

he appreiates the time ahahah yes of course, already that both of you do not really understand what is the pure duration implyied by my rotating 3D spheres and their series of uniqueness. Already that you do not understand what is the real meaning of the entropic distribution and the pure relativity.

And you insist furthermore.

Already that you do not understand what is the entropy and its spherical 3d rationality.

How could you really understand what is my equations and my spheres and the universal 3D sphere.

In fact I find this opportunism so sad , showing the human nature. The Universal sphere is in 3 D and it will be always like that. In all superimposings on the entropical arrow of times furthermore. I find this strategy from these persons,so sad, for them furthermore. Their mathematical superimposings and methods are not rational.In fact these persons try to profit of a kind of cake with a pseudo mathematical method. They think that they are improvers of my theory. No evidently because their extrapolations are just false in details and in the generality. They are obliged to continue because they know the potential in short, middle and long term. So of course the frustrated sharks profit of my revolutionary theory. But the most important is that they do not really what is a mass or a photon. They do not understand that a flower is composed by rotating 3D spheres like an atom of C.Or an adn or a planet of a star of a Bh like all fermions or bosons. In fact they do not understand that the Universe is a sphere in optimization and improvement of mass.All continues to polarises the light. How could they understand that the spheres polarise the spheres, the spheres of mass like the spheres of light. How could they understand that the Universal unique sphere possesses a central sphere like all uniqueness. We turn around this central sphere, we are in a beautiful dance of evolution. The equation of Einstein is more than you can imagine, it lacked something, the 3 motions of the light.This equation is a pure correlation respecting the evolution where the mass polarises the light showing the real meaning of the entropy at all scales.

The mass , it is the light, all is light in fact aged of 13.7 to 15 billions years.The spheres and the SPHERE !!! the parallelizations of Joy are a pure joke from a team of opportunists.

They do not understand what is the aim of this universal sphere.And why they rotate these spheres. See my equations and the universal domain in 3D !!!

Florin, richard, verlinde, brendan,Joy, Jonathan,Christi,lubos,....and friends are in a bar and drink a beer, the rel ask is so but what is the best beer of the world !!! now they probably learn a little of maths and after they shall parallelize the squares of course :)

The problem here that there is no such thing as dimension in physical reality, this is just our conceptualisation of direction. Neither is there time in physical reality, it being the rate at which one reality is superceded by the next. That is, what is conceptualised as time is rate of change, it is not an attribute of any given existent state. And there can only be one existent state, in any given sequence, at a time.

Really James, you think really that your discussions with Tom are relevant. I am dreaming. After you are going to tell us that Tom and Joy 's discussions are relevant. Well. I don't know where you and Tom and Joy have studied your foundamentals. But a sure thing is that you have a total different road than the rationalists and the generalists and foundamentalists about our physical sciences. But what is your circus ? If you James you know the entropy and the uniqueness, or the mathematical algebras or the QM or the relativity ,me of course I am the brother of Yoda and Luke Skywalker is my father! Say the same to Tom and Joy. Perhaps Darth Vador can help them for a better understanding of our universal 3D sphere and its foundamentals.

In fact you do not understand what is the time and its pure duration, proportional and irreversible.The time is a constant of evolution implied by the rotations of spheres !!! Respect the 3D and its foundamentals before pondering an ocean of stupidities for a vanity.

Are you familiar with my work to remove theory from physics equations? The usefulness of the equations is increased producing a different perspective on the nature of the universe. It doesn't make use of spheres. It does address time, space, force, mass, Clausius' theromodynamic entropy, Boltzmann's entropy, temperature, Maxwell's equations, Relativity equations, Relativity-type effects, the universal gravitational constant, the fine structure constant, universal units for physics, hydrogen electron energy levels, and some other stuff.

Even though my ideas are different, yes I do respect the work that the professionals do. Until the physics world decides radical change is necessary for theoretical physics, their work remains the foundational science for the nature of the universe. Their discussions and the problems they work on are the important discussions and problems of theoretical physics. The evaluation of Joy's work, especially including the discussions that occurred here, has been very important for theoretical physics. By the standards of professional theoretical physics, it is itself a radical change.

That is what I think. I respect and appreciate yours and others rights to disagree. However, what I think remains what I think. I wish you success with your theoretical efforts. It will be professionals and not me that ultimately decide that. I hope for good health for you. In the meantime, I hope it will not be disturbing to you if I converse with Tom or others. Afterall, what does it matter what I say?

Don't worry, they read my posts and don't worry, they shall see my face in front of their faces, one day of course !

Ahahah Tom and Joy are pseudo relativists and pseudo generalists. In fact they try with a kind of strategy but of course the real generalists have seen their stupidities. Of course all people understands that these professionals are not skilling like Johan Noldus from my country.If them they understand the sciences, me I am soon your president my friends.ahaha

wait

lisi and Joy and Tom and friends and Noldus and Brendan....professionals ahahay professionals of copycats yes and pseudo imrpovemenst.ahaha murphy ahahah bruce ....retrun at school even with your attorneys or kill me I don't know me, find a correct solution for your strategy.

real pseudos in team !

ps Noldus , don't forget my name and my face !!!and also retrubn at school, I don't know me choose the FNDP like me in Belgium when I was in geology just before my coma. Don't forget my name and my face because soon I will be in front of yours pseudo scientists, pseudo professionals.

Your post has no meaning considering the nerality of the thermodynamics. You speak about Clausius but you do not understand his works, I can name the others like Boyle or ....In fact you use works and you do not understand them, so how can you ponder correct conclusions.

And of course, vanitious, the rotations and the spheres are not rational ??? WELL and after you are going to try to explain what is a roton and a phonon without rotations and the 3d spheres?. Well I suggest that you focus on a good book about thermo. by Zemanski for exampleAfter perhaps you could understand my works about the spheres, thjeir rotations and the spherization optimization evolution inside a 3D sphere.

Maxwell equations, I doubt that you understand them? Tom also and Joy do not understand them.A course about Carnot perhaps ? or Kelvin or Joule or ....it is not a probelm for me , I study these things since the age of 16.It is a passion for me like maths and physics and horticulture and piano and guitar and toxonamy.Indeed I class all since the age of 16.You want a course about the evolutive mass James and friends. You want a course about the polarization of these entangled spheres evolving tand polarizing the light.

quantum spheres.....H ....CNO......HCN H2O H2C2 CH4 NH3 ....+time +energy.....you see the mass of course and the amino acids....you see thatall is coded and composed by quantum spheres and their voluùmes of the serie of uniqueness......adn...........evolution....unicells ....pluricells......sponges.....medusas....reptilains....mammalians........hominids....moons ..planets.....stars...BH..........UNIVERSAL 3D SPHERE AND ITS CENTRAL SPHERE.

RETURN AT SCHOOL DEAR TOM JOY AND FRIENDS. You do not understand I am repeating, the unuiqueness serie, the entropy and the evolution of the 3D sphere.

"...In fact you use works and you do not understand them, so how can you ponder correct conclusions. ..."

Then there is no reason to concern yourself with what I say. Since you have studied Zemansky, then you understand what I mean when I refer to temperature as an indefinable property. Most people don't understand it. I hope you have a good day today.

I am sorry to tell you that no !!! The temperature is not indefinable! We have our gauges and proportions with our equations.

My equations are the proof of that !

E=m(c³o³s³)m and mcosV=constant. For all physical spheres in its system of uniquity, at the quantum scale or the cosmological scale in 3D.The pression, the volumes, the temperatures are definable and rational in their analyzes. The universal sphere possesses quantum spheres and cosmological spheres and they turn and imply real proportionalities even for the time ,irreversible and for this temperature. The simulation can be rational.m mass, c linear velocity,o orbital vel., s spinal vel,V Volume of a physical sphere. It lacked something in the equations of Einstein showing the entropy distribution of cooling correlated with temperature and the arrow of time. The 3 motions of a sphere ! the linear velocity was not sufficient considering the finite serie of ferions and bosons. In fact they are the same in a BEC of the mind !!!The rotations and the volumes and the serie of uniqueness makes the rest.

The temperature you say ....you have with my equatiopns a road to calculate the entire entropy and its paradoxal multiplication considering the planck walls. We could nourrish our earth with one water drop for eternity !!!Is it necessary to multiplicate it, no of course ! because just a part is sufficient.The consciousness always is the most important when we speak about the entropy.

"I am sorry to tell you that no !!! The temperature is not indefinable! We have our gauges and proportions with our equations."

Temperature was indefinable as Zemansky pointed out. It is true that temperature is no longer an indefinable property. That is because I have defined it. I have also defined mass. Good luck with your own work.

You define nothing James. You are just from a team of persons not skilling for a concrete generality. I have explained you in the past what is the entropy, you have repeat my words on linkedin that all possesses the entire entropy. I was shocked like I am shocked by Tom and Joy and their friends.

I have people checking my pc, I have people checking my linkedin, I have people checking my twitter, I have people checking my mails.Even here on FQXi. I am shocked simply by these comportments and this human nature.

Zemanski had understood what is this entire entropy. Of course we are far of this energy but he had understtod that all was composed by the same essence and that this energy was maximum in all at these planck walls.The works of Clausius, Feynman or Debye or ...the list is long and their works are rational. The aim is to continue their works with the same rationalism than these past thinkers. The aim is to improve their equations for concrete techological applications. The rotations and the volumes of spheres are essential like is essential the 3D for a real respect of proportions. The temperature and the mass are linked. I have already seen a lot of bizare things on this Earth but sometimes it is very surprising the human nature and its vanity. I will continue even on checked platforms to show you the roads of foundamentals and the genralities of our sciences.

A lot of people must learn from rationalists. You know the learning and knowledge do not arrive like that from the sky.It is a long road of study in all centers of interest. How could you understand what is the mass if you do not analyze the generalities of polarizations since the begining of the BB.How could you understand the interactions between the spheres of light and the spheres of mass. The fermions and the bosons are in a dance of synchronizations and sortings of informations of evolution.

The tempearture like the time are proportional with the rotations of spheres !

see the volumes and the relations with the pression and the temperature with the rotations of these volumes of the uniquity.

The meaning of the uniquity and the entropy are more than you can imagine ! How can you define the mass, so the energy if you do not understand this entropy and its distribution of rotatyions implying mass and light. The serie of uniquity in the 2 scales in 3D is essential for all serie of uniquity.

You are a good philosophe James but your physics are not sufficient for a concrete understanding of the entropy and the uniquity. I suggest that you learn the evolution , the biology, the chemistry and the maths. The thermodynamics appear so easily when all sciences are studied. The eyes in the books during hours, days, weeks, months, years,millions years, billions years...eternity.We are on earth for a learning indeed.

I have defined temperature and mass. That completes the necessary definitions leaving only the two naturally indefinable properties of length and duration.

"You define nothing James. You are just from a team of persons not skilling for a concrete generality. I have explained you in the past what is the entropy, you have repeat my words on linkedin that all possesses the entire entropy."

I have repeated nothing of yours. I present my own ideas and they are not anything like yours. As I said: Good luck with your work.

My paranoia and my health pass above my rationality.Perhaps it is time for me to take more meds for a real stability of my mind.

Well , about the lenght and the duration, I am sorry to tell you that the road is of course far of us but the scales are definable and rational even if we are young at the universal scale. The duration, relativistic is rational and deterministic for all calculations.

I see you hiding behind those bushes. Anyway if you are referring to my ideas, I can support them to the extent that I have developed them. If you are referring to Tom, you had better be very well armed with knowledge. If you are referring to neither then my message still stands.

"...Everyone should listen to Pink Floyd's "Wish You Were Here," and in particular the lines modified as:

We're all lost souls swimming in a fish bowl, ..."

When are some physicists, perhaps many academics in general, going to learn that they are not experts on politics, economics, social sciences, social values, Biblical knowledge or religions in general, psychology, anthropology, literature, logic, etc., or experts on how to save the rest of us for our own good, or how to save the world. When it gets to that last extent: I say save us from saviors. The references to folk, rock, rap, or whatever lyrics, are poetic in simple terms, but are not the final word in complex matters. Usually, they are gross oversimplifications.

Perhaps I am wrong, but I get the impression that some physicists, and again perhaps many academics due to their being specialists, feel compelled to reach out to art, opera, Pink Floyd, etc., on a sporatic basis pasting in bits of this and bits of that, as if, in spite of their own great academic accomplishments, the loss of those greats who, in past times, were able to complete the full cycle of learning, threatens to lower their self-esteem.

I have nothing against Pink Floyd. I rewired my son's Strat guitar, when he was fifteen, with the same electronics that David Gilmour uses in his red Strat. But, why should those who are seriously evaluating Joy Christian's work put their efforts aside and find the solution in a Pink Floyd quote.

There is a risk of dragging the debate over JC's quantum locality here, which is probably not pertinent to this blog entry. It does though save me from slogging through over 1200 posts, which is getting ridiculously huge and time consuming.

Some Senator during the Vietnam War suggested we should declare victory and get out. In some sense that is all that is left to do here. Of course JC will declare victory as well as the last voice standing on this FQXi blog site with his small minion of followers. However, that is of little concern to me. I put in a few serious comments on this last summer and fall, and frankly all of this is a re-thrashing of the same stuff. From this comes the Pink Floyd reference.

I have encountered several people of this sort who seem clever and determined to keep convolving arguments to uphold something which is simply wrong. Often these people are utterly impossible to argue with beyond a certain point. JC is just the latest example of such people I have encountered. In the end such people may “win” their case in some isolated situation, such as on an FQXi blog page with a half dozen panegyrics or followers. If JC were correct then after five years I think the matter would have percolated through the community and would by now have world support. He would have been getting Nobel Prize nominations by now, if not the actual prize. Overturning a major canon of physics such as theorems on locality in QM is something which would take the scientific world by storm. This would be a so called paradigm shift on the same level as Einstein or Feynman. I see little evidence of that taking place.

I think that arguing this matter further is a total waste of time. Even writing this is a waste of my time, which would be better spent elsewhere. So while I can admire Florin and Gill in their efforts to defray this error or misrepresentation on the part of JC, it really does little good any more. It is best to “declare victory and get out,” and don’t worry whether JC ends up as the “Quantum King” on an FQXi blog page.

As usual, Lawrence's comments are utterly naive, both concerning foundations of quantum mechanics as well as my local-realistic framework. In addition, his understanding of the dynamics and sociology of the physics community is simply adorable. Does he know that the error made by von Neumann in his hidden-variable theorem was discovered by Grete Hermann some 30 years before John Bell (yes, 30 years before John Bell)? Does he know the significance of that error for the foundations of quantum mechanics and what price Physics has paid because of that colossal neglect? Does he know that -- forget the Nobel Prize -- instead of giving any credit to Grete Hermann the physics community derided her and ignored her landmark result all her life? Of course he does not know anything about that, for he already knows the truth. As I have said before, Lawrence is determined to remain fast asleep in his dogmatic slumber when it comes to foundations of quantum mechanics.

On the other hand, for a picture of what 27 dimensional spacetime is "really" like, cruise on over to http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/445 and read the comments by the expert. No flakes or quacks there!

The load time is quick in this thread, can you please contribute to this:

From Tom: "...Not True, Richard. In a continuous function, non-probabilistic, coordinate- free model, Joy's assumptions and the mathematical theory that corresponds to them is entirely self-consistent. You cannot cast his model in your procrustean bed of assumed nonlocality and probability and claim that you have discovered a contradiction."

This seems to me to be a recurring theme, particularly by Tom. If there has been, or is now, a refutation to it where or what is it please? Without reviewing many, many messages, I can't be certain, but, my impression is that the position stated above is ignored? I see its opposite resubmitted, I think repeatedly, but, do not recall its refutation. I see the position quoted above being offered as important justification for Joy's work. If it is not correct then why not? Thank you.

In looking at this I guess I missed this response on JC theory. To be honest I think the whole matter is closed and is reduced to a quibble over the pseudoscalar sign, where JC adamantly argues 1 = -1, or 1 goes to -1, by rather mysterious means. I frankly refuse to get into this, and the main blog site (disproof of disproofs … ) grinds my 4 year old compute to a crawl just to get on. So fogedabboutit!

A thought has occurred to me with all of this. The sign problem might suggest something with measurement. The reduction of a quantum system to a measurement outcome does mean a result obtained is local. So a nonlocal quantum system is reduced to something local that the observer records. The thought is that a measurement might be some sort of rotation which sets -1 to 1 by some auxiliary means. So out of the wreckage here there might actually be something useful. The problem then is how a process such as decoherence might have this effect.

I do see the “recent blog” list continues to have people posting on this, with now up to nearly 1600 posts. Time is precious and my energy is finite, so I have abandoned that as a wasteland. I think the verdict is essentially out on this, and I question whether JC’s panegyrics here are intellectually qualified to make the defense they are upholding. I also find JC’s approach to this to be unfortunate, which is combative and adversive.

With all due respect you are simply a dogmatic troglodyte when it comes to understanding my model. THERE IS NO SIGN PROBLEM IN MY MODEL. The so-called problem is entirely a figment of your imagination. It has been conjured-up by your deep-seated prejudices for the quantum mysticism.

"Listening to a cable news channel today, it was mentioned that: "You can't prove a negative." I thought to myself at the time: I'll bet Tom can. :)"

LOL! Sure, mathematicians do it every day. What that generally meaningless expression really means, though, is what scientists mean when they say "The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

In other words, in a scientific correspondence of mathematical theory to measured result, nothing outside the correspondence can be demonstrated. That's the "negative existence" in which any unproved postulate holds. Therefore, it's pointless to try and prove it. Another way to say the same meaningless thing: "Anything's possible."

I looked around for a good terse explanation of this "proving a negative" business, and found an excellent one by Steven D. Hales.

It does relate directly to the exchanges we've been having over Joy's framework. As I have mentioned before, the mathematical proof of Bell's theorem rests on nothing more than double negation (which you'll find explained in Hales' little article). Those of us who have studied quantum theory and Bell's theorem have long known that the inductive logic on which it is founded is very weak compared to a mathematically complete theory like relativity. We just didn't know any way around it (as Hales explains, one only trusts inductive logic when there seems to be no alternative).

Joy found the alternative, and now Bell's theorem has lost its significance as a foundational theorem of physics.

Thanks Whilhelmus, you are welcome, you know I beleive that the altruism is a parameter so essential. All is composed by the same essence. And the sufferings must disappear, it is an evidence of optimization. The responsability of a scientist is to improve the systems with the biggest rationalism. In fact we are like catalyzers inside a pure deterministic reality.I beleive humble that a real...

Thanks Whilhelmus, you are welcome, you know I beleive that the altruism is a parameter so essential. All is composed by the same essence. And the sufferings must disappear, it is an evidence of optimization. The responsability of a scientist is to improve the systems with the biggest rationalism. In fact we are like catalyzers inside a pure deterministic reality.I beleive humble that a real scientist, a real searcher is there to help the humanity and the global system and all its creations aged of 13.7 to 15 billions years. The sciences are tools of harmonization, of spherization, of optimization. The responsability and even the rule of a scientist is to analyze the deterministic roads. The researchs are not a play of business at a hour so important for our globality, we have not a infinite stock of monney, of Black oil, or gas or....I think that the hour is serious and that it is time to act with an universal rationalism of equilibrium. If we have a quantity of disponible money, so we must utilize it with a real universal responsabilities. The energy can be solved, the water also, the food also but it will lack km². A kind of global commission must be created for the well of all. The foundamentals are not the money, the borders, the arms and weapons. The universal foundamentals are more than these simple human words.

I am shocked Whilhelmus in seeing an ocean of stupid global comportments. I don't understand how it is possible. The most irritating is that the solutions exist.The energetical ressourses are not really a problem, the problem is the unconsciousness I think.If the responsables are not universal and totally universal, we cannot solve our global probelms.The future will be in the chaotical exponentials if we do not take quickly our responsabilities. The energy is not the probelm, because we could nourrish our planet during the eternity with a simple water drop. The water is not a probelm because correlated with this energy cited above. We can utilize this water with reason and balances. The food is not a probelm if we produce with the biggest consciousness...see the correlted global ecology. The number of humans will increase still more. It will lack foods if we do not invent several new revolutions. Even the creation of future starships are essential for our future. How can we arrive at these foundamentals if a kind of global commission does not exist with real global solutions.If already we cannot solve our simple global probelms?

The responsability seems the answer Whilhelmus.

You understand better why I am irritated when we loose our global investments due to a virtual play witht the monney. The monney must be well utilized.

The consciousness seems an other answer.

What a world ! But we evolve fortunally. But I fear of our future at short term.

The solutions exist, so why? Just because people prefers to loose their times instead to improve the universalism and its evolution. Where is the irony ? simple and evident when the whole is seen.

My words were for you as an individual not a generalisation about the state of the world or universe. Basically, don't give up on life, a different perspective can be helpful, to be alive is better than dead. There can be hope where there is life even in the most extreme situations.I have just recently watched a TV programme about a guy who fell off a cliff onto a remote beach. He broke his pelvis in several places and had to drag himself across the rocky beach, back up the cliff to a hiking trail to get help. The flesh was worn from his legs by dragging them over sandstone, he was in unimaginable pain from moving his broken bones, he had a ruptured pancreas and was near to death when he was found. He could have just lain on the beach and died there but he didn't because he was still alive and still had hope.

Taking on all of the world's problems on top of personal problems can be too much for any individual.It is good to care but not to care so much that it destroys you.I was given advice like that by my mentor at university many years ago.I think it was sensible.Its important that you take care of yourself first,because then you may improve your health and strength enough effectively handle personal, and world problems.

I was learning about these very problems nearly 30 year ago as part of a course in ecology. The predictions were being made then. I was told that by the time the firm evidence of global warming was in it would be too late. I also took a course in crop plant evolution and agricultural development. Where we were taught about the imminent crisis of feeding the growing world population at the same time as oil running short, affecting mechanised agriculture and supply of artificial fertilizers, as well as pollution of lands and soil erosion reducing the carrying capacity of the environment. The big hope back then was that GM would provide a boost to food production to rival the first green (agricultural) revolution. Many people are aware and many people care but as individuals we don't have super powers or magic wands.We do what we can- not more.

The spherization my friends, the spheres and the sphere and the spherization shall answer to your doubts !

Georgina , the determinism is the sister of the rationalism and the brother of the universalism in 3D for the respect of all contemplations. The creations aged of 15 billions years are very relevant and very fascinating. The ecology indeed is essential. I work on that since many years and my inventions are concrete in this domain of activity. Do you know for example Georgina the argilo humic complex and the polarizations .Do you know the totipotence of vegetals, and their multiplications, I test since many years. I have a global technic for the composting at big scale , at global earthian scale ! That , it is real sciences !

Regards

Whilhelmus the hackers are numerous, the stealers also, so you understand why I don't clic on the link.My parano is enormous logic when you have revolutionary ideas. The pseudo and the sharks are there for this papper, this money. But I will continue even dead. Their only solutions is to kill me . Bryan, Mr Reeves, Tegmarg , Aguire, ....I repeat ....kill me and make it well furthermore ahahah. You think what ? That I have to accept your hate ? lET ME LAUGH.

You have motre monney and power than me, you have teams and friensds, you have technological systems and several strategies because you are several. But even like that I am stronger that you with my words and my sciences. It is not the picture that I had of New York but in the same time I am understand the taste of the monney and the competitivity like a play. It is ironical to see these things because that decreases the velocity of evolution of sciences. Your strategy is not universal FQXi in this kind of reasoning. I will be soon at New York. and I repeat kill me before.You think that we are in a soccer play or what ? We are not on a chess platform. You confound the catalyzations of ideas and the maths imtrpovement with the rationalism and the respect.

Whilhelmus say to your friends to study the real sciences and to be in the universal integrity. They like money, me I lOVE the universal sphere and its aim.and what?

if you could stabilize your moods it would be easier for people to take your practical science projects more seriously. You are unlikely to find people who will want to listen carefully or go into serious partnership in developing your projects when your moods are so variable. People also do not like being ridiculed or insulted. You may call it honesty but it can also be construed as bad manners, wilful abuse or lack of self control. Your work may be all that you say, I don't know enough about it. However your moods will drive away the people that you would like to take you seriously. However they may instead attract antisocial people who will see you as a potential victim, as they are attracted to any kind of obvious frailty.It is counter-productive for you to post when you are in a distressed state.

In fact, people are too much vanitious. In fact they are even jealous because they are not able to ponder works, general and foundamental. It exists Georgina real searchers and on the otgher side the pseudos. Why they insist, It is not an insult but just a critic....

In fact, people are too much vanitious. In fact they are even jealous because they are not able to ponder works, general and foundamental. It exists Georgina real searchers and on the otgher side the pseudos. Why they insist, It is not an insult but just a critic. The critics are essential but apparently several persons are not interested in the real critics. You know people can critic my works but apparently they cannot. They prefer the other road. Sad ,isn’t it ? and you know for what Georgina? And don’t say me that it is the opportunism of the ideas. Let me laugh in this line of reasoning. I say that with respect of course and good manners.

Why?

1 for money

2 for their vanity

3 because they are obliged

4 because they cannot ponder rationalities.

You know what ?Georgina, I am the only one person on this platform with real revolutionary sciences. It is not a vanitious comportment, no ! It is just a fact !

The respect merits itself Georgina, I don't need pseudo courses of psychiatres , I say that with respect.I have already my psychiatres. Learn form my sciences Georgina and after perhaps we could speak about my equations.lol But perhaps you are too much occupied with your quaternion and your friends in a specific strategy.relol

Still a paranoiac comportment. But I take my meds.

You know Georgina, if scientists have listened the generality of my ideas. So they are skilling and so they have seriously understood. I doubt that Joy, you or th and friends are taken seriously. I just critic sincerely the ideas and the reasonings in their pure general analayze.I don't insult , I just say a fact.

In fact the jealousy is the sister of the incompetence. The fact that they insist shows what I say.Still I just explain my points of vue.

The diffamations and the calomnias are punishables. I am not an anti social but an universalist. Never I have crushed an insect me ok !and I have a big universal faith.I see above me before acting and thinking !!!

I have perhaps my psychological problems due to a very difficult life and some problems of health. But I cannot accept that people says calomnias. I respect all creations since that I am conscious. And also I love your country but perhaps several people don't want that I arrive at New York. Taken seriously, no but I dream .We shall see soon georgina. If people thinks that I am at home with my smoke. Don't confound the time and its steps. For your understanding I was in the coma at 20. I was obliged to relearn to speak.At the age of 23 I have created an enterprise in vegetal multiplication. I have had a bankrupcy at 27, in the same time my marriage was lost with my girlfriend. I have just saved the home of my mother this year.After 8 years of problems due to bad people. And you say me what ? Georgina don't confound the rules.If people thinks that I am going to be at home with my mother all the time, let me laugh. They do not know nothing about me .You know the real searchers must be respected. Am I respected ? The life is not at unique sense ! I love USA Georgina and I will be soon in this country for a real revolution spherization in 3D.It exists good and bad people in all countries, religions or cultures. The aim is to know and to work with the good persons in fighting the bad persons, it is only simple that this simple universal evidence.

I don't insult, I just say my opinions about their pseudo sciences. But apparently their vanity is above the reason. If they cannot learn from real generalists, so they are not scientists for me. But it is just my opinion of course.The problem is that they are not good students because they do not learn correctly. I am not better than others, I am just a generalist with revolutionary ideas, concrete in 3d and rational. The sciences are not a play or a business, no! it is the universe and its laws. Georgina, if they confound the bad manners with the critics, it is not my problem. I can understand that I am arrogant but I am obliged in this scientific world.If their hate is more important than their universal love, it is not my problem, me my heart is in the love with or without the approvement of diffamators.

I have nothing against people Georgina,even Joy or tom ....I can consider them like friends if one day we drink a glass of belgian beer.But I have my limits and the play of Joy and Tom are not well with the utilization of the word sphere without respect of my works.In fact since that I am on FQXi, more than 4 years I think. I am not really respected. In fact people prefers to profit of my weak health and my weak social state.They profit also that I am alone. It is not well in fact. They have seen the importance of my works and they have seen the potential at short , middle and long term. I am understanding that I have discovered a very important thing, but I am shocked by the human comportments. In fact, the bad manners are there Georgina. The habit does not make the monk at my knowledge. Me personaly I have nothing to hide. I have defaults and qualities like all people. But I have my limits. They do not know nothing about me, they have just opinions.

I am angry but I work on my faith for a quiet of my serenity.

The life is not a game but a pure road of improvement.

I have haedackes all the days Georgina, I take a lot of meds due to several neurological problems. But I have faith and I am strong in this faith even if I am tired morally speaking. The sphere helps me.

Georgina, have you seen the hopes of the spheres and its spheres inside this sphere and its spherization,have you seen that all turns and has an ultim aim.

Have yous seen this Truth? Taken seriously ? Don't confound the rules Georgina.

If you want to be recognized Georgina, I invit you to be more general and more objective. In fact the subjectivity is the sister of the objectivity when the real sciences are utilized, the rest is vain. You know my pseychiatre sais me that it exists perhaps on this earth 20 to 30 persons understanding the relativity. I doubt that these persons are on this platform but it is just a suggestion of course. The philosophy is one thing, the sciences an other.!!!

And you know what , I laugh when I see Joy and Th, in fact I have a kind of pity for them and their weak sciences. In fact they try to utilize my ideas but they cannot understand them rationally. In fact they are just false improvers. They have probably a kind of job and a kind of frustration. :)

numerous and I have learned a lot of things. Because it is my road, my life!

If people wants to profit of this theory because I don't publish or I am alone, or I am weak healthy speaking or if they have hate agianst me.It is not my probelm but their probelms.I don't attach importance to these comportments.They are just frustrated. They are also limited for an real understanding of the pure generality. What I find very surprising and sad even is that they insist on their false roads. Like if they were frustrated by lack of recognizing of the sciences community. In fact it exists people who are skilling to ponder general works and it exists people who are not competent simply.It is simply a fact ! Why they continue so ? The irony at its paroxysm.

Instead to learn from real innovators, they try to make a "I don't know". Do you find this comportment like logic and rational you ? Me Frankly Iam finding this very sad and very bizare and irrational when we analyze the generality of our laws.

Georgina, I know you since several years now due to FQXi. I can understand that I am arrogant. But don't forget the past and why I am like that. I am just obliged.I thought that FQXi liked the belgian beer me. FqxI is young, Mr Aguire and Mr Tegmark are not the probelm. But perhaps that like FQXi is young, it exists several persons to sort for the well of the institute. I am frank and I insist on this fact .FQXi must be universal and rational and just.I am integre and a person respecting when he is respected. But a real team must be universal with good persons.

Revolution spherization Georgina in 3D they turn these quantum spheres and the cosmological spheres also and all inside a beautiful sphere in optimization and complexification, and a beautiful main central sphere !

How do you distinguish between words like (space-time geometry) which are part of the mathematical model, from words like (space-time continuum) which is nature. The mathematical model models nature. General relativity models nature, the part of nature that we call the space-time continuum. The model is accurate, but not necessarily complete? If you assume that the model is complete, then technological advancement is stymied. However, if you think up new and clever experiments that attempt to discover something new about the space-time continuum and/or the standard model, then a discovery is possible.

Why is nobody coming up with ideas for clever experiments to discover something new about nature?

Reinterpreting some experiments may also teach you a lot about nature. For instance, if you know how the lifetime of muons "at rest" is measured, you may come to the conclusion that the famous muon experiment has nothing to do with time dilation:

http://www.physics.rutgers.edu/ugrad/389/muon/muon-rutgers.pdf

"In order to measure the decay constant for a muon at rest (or the corresponding mean-life) one must stop and detect a muon, wait for and detect its decay products, and measure the time interval between capture and decay. Since muons decaying at rest are selected, it is the proper lifetime that is measured. Lifetimes of muons in flight are time-dilated (velocity dependent), and can be much longer..."

A similar wisdom:

In order to measure the lifetime of a driver at rest, one must observe a car coming to a sudden stop into a wall. Lifetimes of moving drivers can be much longer...

It seems like Edwin, Lawrence, Tom and others have been debating your paper for about six months now. I was told that you are basically arguing in support of Local Realism and local hidden variables. Personally, I think that quantum entanglement makes more sense then local hidden variables. But this should probably be verified experimentally.

Hi Pencho,

The dilation of muon lifetime is most certainly a convincing argument that time dilation is real.

Jaason said, "Personally, I think that quantum entanglement makes more sense then local hidden variables. But this should probably be verified experimentally."

Yes it should be experimentally verified so someone should do Joy's experiment as the quantum EPR type experiments only tell us that quantum correlation violate Bell's inequalities. Only a classical EPR type experiment will tell if Bell is right or if Joy is right.

Fred Diether wrote: "Only a classical EPR type experiment will tell if Bell is right or if Joy is right."

Experiments are double-edged in Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world. In 1887 the Michelson-Morley experiment UNEQUIVOCALLY confirmed the dependence of the speed of light on the speed of both the light source and the observer:...

Fred Diether wrote: "Only a classical EPR type experiment will tell if Bell is right or if Joy is right."

Experiments are double-edged in Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world. In 1887 the Michelson-Morley experiment UNEQUIVOCALLY confirmed the dependence of the speed of light on the speed of both the light source and the observer:

Relativity and Its Roots, Banesh Hoffmann: "Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether."

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/companion.doc

John Norton: "These efforts were long misled by an exaggeration of the importance of one experiment, the Michelson-Morley experiment, even though Einstein later had trouble recalling if he even knew of the experiment prior to his 1905 paper. This one experiment, in isolation, has little force. Its null result happened to be fully compatible with Newton's own emission theory of light. Located in the context of late 19th century electrodynamics when ether-based, wave theories of light predominated, however, it presented a serious problem that exercised the greatest theoretician of the day."

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/1743/2/Norton.pdf

John Norton: "In addition to his work as editor of the Einstein papers in finding source material, Stachel assembled the many small clues that reveal Einstein's serious consideration of an emission theory of light; and he gave us the crucial insight that Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as evidence for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost universally use it as support for the light postulate of special relativity. Even today, this point needs emphasis. The Michelson-Morley experiment is fully compatible with an emission theory of light that CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE."

Faster Than the Speed of Light, Joao Magueijo: "A missile fired from a plane moves faster than one fired from the ground because the plane's speed adds to the missile's speed. If I throw something forward on a moving train, its speed with respect to the platform is the speed of that object plus that of the train. You might think that the same should happen to light: Light flashed from a train should travel faster. However, what the Michelson-Morley experiments showed was that this was not the case: Light always moves stubbornly at the same speed. This means that if I take a light ray and ask several observers moving with respect to each other to measure the speed of this light ray, they will all agree on the same apparent speed!"

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,993018,00.html

Stephen Hawking: "So if you were traveling in the same direction as the light, you would expect that its speed would appear to be lower, and if you were traveling in the opposite direction to the light, that its speed would appear to be higher. Yet a series of experiments failed to find any evidence for differences in speed due to motion through the ether. The most careful and accurate of these experiments was carried out by Albert Michelson and Edward Morley at the Case Institute in Cleveland, Ohio, in 1887......It was as if light always traveled at the same speed relative to you, no matter how you were moving."

Experiment 1: The lifetime of muons at rest (...) Some of these muons are stopped within the plastic of the detector and the electronics are designed to measure the time between their arrival and their subsequent decay. The amount of time that a muon existed before it reached the detector had no effect on how long it continued to live once it entered the detector. Therefore, the decay times measured by the detector gave an accurate value of the muon's lifetime. After two kinds of noise were subtracted from the data, the results from three data sets yielded an average lifetime of 2.07x 10^(-6)s, in good agreement with the accepted value of 2.20x 10^(-6)s."

That is, muons bump into the plastic of the detector and their speed suddenly changes from almost 300000km/s to zero. Could such a violent collision cause rapid subsequent disintegration? Or non-colliding muons gloriously live longer because they suffer time dilation and we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity?

http://www.physics.rutgers.edu/ugrad/389/muon/muon-rutgers.pdf

"In order to measure the decay constant for a muon at rest (or the corresponding mean-life) one must stop and detect a muon, wait for and detect its decay products, and measure the time interval between capture and decay. Since muons decaying at rest are selected, it is the proper lifetime that is measured. Lifetimes of muons in flight are time-dilated (velocity dependent), and can be much longer..."

A similar wisdom:

In order to measure the lifetime of a driver at rest, one must observe a car coming to a sudden stop into a wall. Lifetimes of moving drivers can be much longer...

Einsteiniana's textbooks teach that cosmic-ray muons moving at a speed close to c live much longer than muons "at rest", and that this gloriously confirms time dilation, the absurd consequence of Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate. Then textbooks explain how the lifetime of moving muons is measured but usually don't mention the experimental procedure allowing Einsteinians to assess the lifetime of muons "at rest". How do Einsteinians measure the lifetime of muons "at rest"? When cosmic-ray muons bump into an obstacle so that their speed instantly changes from about 300000km/s to zero, their forced and quick disintegration makes Einsteinians sing "Divine Einstein" and go into convulsions. Why? Simply because rationality in Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world is so devastated that, as the muon undergoes such a terrible crash, Einsteinians can safely say 'Lo, a muon at rest' (nobody cares to contradict them) and infer that non-crashing (moving) muons live longer than crashing ("at rest") muons, in perfect accordance with Divine Albert's Divine Theory:

http://web.mit.edu/lululiu/Public/pixx/not-pixx/muons.pdf

"A muon that COMES TO REST in the detector induces one signal upon entry and another upon decay."

http://www.particle.kth.se/~pearce/muonlab/muonlab.pdf

"The purpose of this laboratory is to measure the lifetime of cosmic-ray muons. The experimental technique is straight-forward. Cosmic ray muons ARE STOPPED in an aluminium target which is sandwiched between plastic scintillator detectors... (...) A stopping muon is indicated by a signal in the top and middle scintillators but no signal in the bottom scintillators. The time between the muon stopping and its decay (a further signal in the middle or bottom scintillator) is measured with an electronics system."

I wish I could articulate more clearly to you why frequency shift will induce gravity fields. It helps if you know what the space-time continuum is made of and what the quantum vacuum is made of; space-time and the quantum vacuum are two facets of the same thing.

At the moment of the big bang, everything was quantum entangled with everything else. This total quantum entanglement survives today, it is called the space-time continuum. If you look closely enough, it is the quantum vacuum. That is all you have to work with; lots of matter, lots of energy, and this quantum entanglement mesh.

Gravity causes gravitational time dilation which causes gravitational redshift; in principle there should be a wave function that includes time dilation and all possible frequency shifts that can occur. A synthesized frequency shift should be able reproduce at least part of this wave-function. You should be able to get back at least some of the gravity by reproducing the wave-function.

There is another consideration. The Einstein equations may be an equilibrium state for the space-time continuum/quantum vacuum. Wide range frequency shifts in very short time periods may be enough to disturb the local space-time away from equilibrium.

If someone wanted to perform the frequency shift experiment to test whether or not it can produce a gravity field, this is what I would suggest. Build the circuit on a gallium arsenide wafer. By varying the ratio of gallium_x to aluminum_1-x, you can vary the bandgap and obtain a range of frequencies. Fill up the wafer die with light emitting diodes with 16 different frequencies. Design a circuit that will step through each frequency "step", from lowest frequency to highest frequency. You won't be able to match up the phase between frequency steps, but you can still get proof of concept. The 16 different frequency LED's should be evenly dispersed throughout the die. When the GaAs wafer is completed, wire a clock and a voltage supply to each die on the wafer. The wafer is fragile, so I recommend dipping the wafer in polyacrylic glass. The faster you step through all 16 frequencies, the better. Use the fastest clock available. You are trying to simulate a linear frequency shift of

f(t) = [df/dt]t+f_0. Do this and you have a gravity field generator.

There are jewelery scales that can read down to the micro gram. Place a 100g weight on the scale. Direct the gravity field generator at the scale. The goal is to get the generator to cause a deviation in the weight of the 100g weight.

Reality is nothing but a mathematical structure. A computer program can illustrate that easily. While reality CAN be simulated but it looks like it is a natural process. A mathematical structure not unlike a circle.

Here is what I call the most beautiful graph ever, I simulate two particles interacting, with different compton wavelengths for each run. they all converge on the .00054858 the mass of the electron. This is just one of many results that I have obtained by the simulation.

the thumbnail shows 1D implementation. 1,2,3,4,.... are the number of loops. in each loop I throw two numbers for each particle denoting their position and length. if the lines cross (star) I ignore I don't register the position( the round marks) or don't do anything with the lines. But if they don't cross then I have a counter that updates the number of times a hit happened in the particular position (the squared marks). then for each particle I have a counter that simply adds the lengths of this line to the previous total for each particle.

I do that(loops) a million, sometimes a 100 trillion times. then I normalize to the number of throws. the totals of the lines(normalized) are the energy. the numbers of hits for each positions is operated on to get the expectation values. normalized position hits are the probabilities that are similar to the ones we get from the "squaring" of the wavefunction. Without interaction the expectation value is the midpoint of the particle. But when interaction happens the expectation value moves. lets say to left in the left particle and right in the right particle. That denotes a repulsion. you can also get attraction with different logic. But more on the logic part later.

then the particles are moved to a different distance and the operation is repeated.

This is my last post unless somebody becomes interested and responds. I find it a bit strange that the blog is about simulating reality and yet when a possible system is shown nobody takes interest with tens of unrelated posts.

you can run the program by downloading C++ express (free) plus SDK 7.1(free) to run the 64 bit.

This is my last post unless somebody becomes interested and responds. I find it a bit strange that the blog is about simulating reality and yet when a possible system is shown nobody takes interest with tens of unrelated posts.

you can run the program by downloading C++ express (free) plus SDK 7.1(free) to run the 64 bit.

This is just a write up on the background of the theory

Reality exists hence we say it is true. But what is really true besides that more than anything else which we can really trust, it is mathematical facts. So, to my mind I connect both since both seem to be a statement of truth. So I took a guess that reality is something akin to a circle (truth). The relations between the points give you a mathematical structure whereby you get PI which defines the structure of the circle.

So I was thinking the relation(s) between what entity(s) could give a rise to a universe (truth). To come up with a structure with some entities, the easiest way was to see if I could draw two entities and define some kind a rule for their interaction. At that time I was familiar with fractals and vaguely heard of Conaways idea, but I said let me see maybe I will be smarter than Conaway and get some really fancy rule between some triangle or circles or lines or whatever. But as soon as I put a blank sheet in front of me ,for a short while I thought to myself this sounds very enigmatic, first by what criteria I am going to choose my entity, and which characteristic of that entity I was going to interrelate them and what expression. Choosing by trial and error was not very natural.

My intuition was telling me I needed something more natural. Being an engineer and a programmer we learn to be efficient in our designs. So I opted first for the simplest configuration and that was point and to start simple and not to draw points all over the paper, I restricted myself to a line. Now, if I iterate on an artificial formula I will just get fractals which has already been tried which gives you beautiful suggestive pictures but that's all. Also the different formulas I could use were most unnatural. So I thought the only way out is to throw random numbers on the line and see what happens. Off course, after a bit more than few seconds it was obvious I am going to get a uniformly distributed points on the line, I don't have to tell you that I was sad at that point( although I should have been happy as hell, you will see why). How I was to get out of this conundrum, other than mangling that paper, throwing it in the garbage can and go to a party. The only other thing to do was to throw random lines that did not exceed an original line of length L. One more choice was necessary is to choose where those lines started, the obvious choice was random position on that line L. Simulating this concept with simple BASIC program and using the simplest constraint , to eliminate the lines that went out of the L bound I plotted the probability of hitting the positions on the line L. And WOW sin^2 the solution to Schrodinger equation(actually psi square) in an infinite potential well. The rest of the story of multi axis, general potential, and interaction and so on you can read about it in the website.

If you have observed this site before posting, then you would know that everyone has their own bandwagon to push. You are going to have to push yours yourself. For starters: "...what is really true besides that more than anything else which we can really trust, it is mathematical facts. ..." is not true for me. Perhaps someone else will find it attractive. Also, any results you achieved through programming were due to the initial conditions, restraints or whatever, that you put into the computer. It is telling you back what you have told it. Again, perhaps someone else who will offer to correct me. Then you may have the dialogue you are looking for.

I have read your posts. It is interesting to hear about what other people are doing. I think what you are saying about a mathematical simulation of reality is interesting. I have an inexpert interest in fractals and 3D simulations and interest in how the mathematics of chaos theory might be relevant at the foundational level of reality. Your description of the mathematical approach...

I have read your posts. It is interesting to hear about what other people are doing. I think what you are saying about a mathematical simulation of reality is interesting. I have an inexpert interest in fractals and 3D simulations and interest in how the mathematics of chaos theory might be relevant at the foundational level of reality. Your description of the mathematical approach was better than what you are saying about reality, in my opinion. I have written a lot about reality in the context of physics so some of your statements on what reality is grate a little.

You said "Reality is nothing but a mathematical structure." OK but I think the kind of mathematical structure you have in mind can only be part of one facet of reality. You also said "Reality exists hence we say it is true. But what is really true besides that more than anything else which we can really trust, it is mathematical facts." It really depends upon the definition of reality that you are using, imo. If reality is taken to be what is observed alone then there is the possibility of deception due to misinterpretation of incomplete information. If you are making the assumption of a reality that exists without observation you will find, as I have, that there are physicists who will call that mere philosophy or metaphysics and irrelevant. I don't put my trust in mathematical facts alone because they need to be interpreted to be understood and it is in that interpretation that error can occur making the facts deceive IE give a false perception of reality.

There are scientists and mathematicians who think that it is not science's place to explain.- "The sciences do not try to explain, they hardly even try to interpret they mainly make models. By a model is meant a mathematical construct which, with the addition of certain verbal interpretations describes observed phenomena. The justification of such a mathematical construct is solely and precisely that it is expected to work. John Von Neumann,(1903-1957). Contrast- "In essence, science is a perpetual search for an intelligent and integrated comprehension of the world we live in." Cornelius Van Neil,(1897-1985)

If those two viewpoints were considered as extremities on a spectrum of opinion about the function of science, then I suspect that your opinions would fall closer to Von Neumann's and mine closer to Van Neil's. If it is the mathematical model that is most important to you then, from long experience of this blog forum, I would advise staying away from the philosophical justification of it, as it is a potential "minefield" and distraction from what you probably really want to share.I'm not a qualified physicist or mathematician so I'm probably not the sort of person you were hoping to notice your work. I just wanted you to know that it has not been unnoticed. There are more people who read the messages than respond.It would be great to have more regular contributors on these discussions, so please don't be deterred by the lack of immediate attention and noticeable interest.

I did not claim that reality is mathematical and stopped, I provided evidence. I understand your concern. But it would be stupid of me to rig the program and at the same time publicly publish it. However, it is possible to make mistakes and overlook things, and that is why I ask people to check it for themselves. There is also a possibility that my system is by chance mimics a good model of reality and the model has nothing to do with reality being mathematical. But that will be only established after a good number of qualified people look at the model and its results seriously. I will reply to Georgina separately.

"...But it would be stupid of me to rig the program and at the same time publicly publish it. ..."

I have no reason to suggest that you rigged the program. My message didn't say that. It said that what you put in determines what comes out. It was just a comment on computers. If I enterred steps to follow, then, the computer would give me back that which I told it. It often is the case that we program something without being able to see the end result and the computer makes up for that. However, if we were thorough enough to understand the implications of what we tell the computer to do, then we would know the results to expect. You are welcome to disagree with this assessment.

Is this what you equate with reality? "And WOW sin^2 the solution to Schrodinger equation(actually psi square) in an infinite potential well." I assumed by reality that you meant our existence. I indicated, by my response, that I do not think that our existence is mathematical facts. The example you sight looks to me like a matter of solving a mechanical problem.

I just disagreed with what you have said. I didn't mean to question your integrity. It is just a matter of seeing things differently. I think there are some here who might share your view. Some dialogue has now started. Give them a chance to respond.

Sorry for being sensitive, it is because just recently a poster on a forum told me this

"What generates the graph, qsa?

Could it be a program where you already have the value that you get in it?"

he is referring to .00054858 (the mass of the electron) that appears in the shown graph.

In my system there is one constraint and one assumption (particle width). they are very mild by typical standard physics methods. and in the majority of the simulations ,like the shown graph, the constraint is not even used. and if you look at the heart of the program it is so simple (just lines crossed or not). So the program gives powerful result for a bare minimum, that is what is astonishing.

Of course, I do consider reality to be nothing but QM/QFT, I just show how they arise naturally because it is the only design for a dynamic system involving interaction of fundamental entities which are lines by necessity.Interacting the only way they can by intersection or not. It has been a dream of many to generate QM/QFT from a purely natural system without reference to experiment or a guessed formula like Schrodinger equation with obscure wavefunction.

I am probably not the best person here to discuss your theory with. One problem is that I have my own that I like a lot. The other is that I am generally in disagreement with your basic ideas about the nature of the universe. However, perhaps some others will contribute to the discussion if I express my views on a few matters. I am the only one here who agrees with me.

"...So I opted first for the simplest configuration and that was point and to start simple and not to draw points all over the paper, I restricted myself to a line. ..."

I consider a line to be a highly organized configuraton. Not as highly organized as more complex configurations, but, even that may be a matter of one's viewpoint. Starting with a line means that you have accepted organization for free without justification other than using existence to explain itself. If it is a matter of using existence to explain itself, then I see empirical evidence as consisting of observed effects, while the explanation consists of theory. What I mean by this is that theory is invented to substitute for that which we cannot know. Ok, I think that is enough said on this point. Hopefully it will be enough to invigorate others to jump in and disagree with me. They are invited to do that.

"...The only other thing to do was to throw random lines that did not exceed an original line of length L. One more choice was necessary is to choose where those lines started, the obvious choice was random position on that line L. Simulating this concept with simple BASIC program and using the simplest constraint , to eliminate the lines that went out of the L bound I plotted the probability of hitting the positions on the line L. And WOW sin^2 the solution to Schrodinger equation(actually psi square) in an infinite potential well. ..."

I haven't run your program and haven't decided to do that. However, I do picture n my mind what you appear to be describing and the vision that I get is very suggestive of a bell shaped curve. My view results from picturing all of the lines that, primarily due to their angle as much as their position, are discarded. This condition seems to me to be another example of unexplained sophisticated control. Ok, I think that is probably more than enough again. Lets see if others decide to join in to counter what I have said. They are invited to do so.

Thank you for raising valid points again, I really wanted to take Georgina advice and not delve into too much philosophy before many more concrete results were shown. But you were ahead, good for you. The problem of the line also bothered me quite a bit, since I wanted to have physics pop out with no input whatsoever. But I feel now (I might be mistaken) that the solution was already inherent in the system.

It was again a matter of mild interpretation. Well, I do not need that line; as a matter of fact the variable l denoting universe size is a legacy variable and it is not fundamental anymore. Also as a matter of fact that l was nice at the beginning to work with but as soon as I started simulating particles in bigger and bigger universes it created a problem and the results started to depend on that line which did not make any sense. And later when I did 2D simulation it was clear that using l like that made the system invariant under coordinate change, so to fix that I had to throw the lines to go from one particle to the other only. That fixed many things which I will not go into them for now.

But the essential thing is that we do not need that line and the lines that go between the particles can be derived from just their end points, so we only have points. As a matter of fact in my system time is an artifact of the state of change after each interaction, and space is an artifact of those crossings!! And what's more is that since you have lines coming out of each "point" in space, so just like regular QFT space is filled with these particles like entities. I really should stop here, and I hope I do not get grilled on these things until more of the essential results of the model are completed.

The sin^2 shape (actually the constraint) and associated issues are a bit tied to above. I will not delve at this point except to say that there is no great problem there. Also I have done simulations and some thought that indicates that both the constraint and the assumption will be also explained within the model. But Let’s not get ahead of ourselves and explore the jewels that the system is giving us already first.

I don't expect anyone to begin with nothing. Everyone must begin with something. I refer to that as the original miracle. Theoretical physics refers to it and the other free-bees as givens. It is the other free-bees that I am certain are not needed. The original one is unavoidable and there is nothing wrong with proposing one. Everyone has to submit their own proposal for their...

I don't expect anyone to begin with nothing. Everyone must begin with something. I refer to that as the original miracle. Theoretical physics refers to it and the other free-bees as givens. It is the other free-bees that I am certain are not needed. The original one is unavoidable and there is nothing wrong with proposing one. Everyone has to submit their own proposal for their miraculous beginning point.

Something I feel certain about, but usually soften it and express it as just my opinion is that complexity cannot come from simplicity. There is no way to account for the existence of complexity except by beginning with complexity. This is analogous to what I wrote about computers. "The computer is telling you back that which you told it." I feel certain the same is true about any form of complexity. Complexity of effects is due to complexity of cause. For me there must be a one to one relationship.

I don't consider a line to be simple at all. However, I also do not consider it to be complex enough for a beginning point. The beginning point must have all the complexity that will ever be observed in effects contained potentially within itself. I see nothing wrong with this concept and consider it to be absolute in the sense that there is no substitute for it.

My opinion is that all explanations that conclude that simplicity leads to complexity are solely imaginative substitutions for that which we are unaware of. This statement is also analogous to the computer statement. For example, we usually do not see the full consequences of that which we tell the computer. We have to wait and let the computer tell us what those consequences are. Yet, they were always there for us to see if we tried harder.

Still, it is most often the case that we cannot see all of the consequences of our assumptions. So, we usually do start with something and try it out to see how well it works. If it falters at some point, then we change our 'something' and try again. This practice usually works sufficiently enough and, I go through it also.

Whatever starting point, you eventually choose to use, might appear to undiscerning eyes to be simple, but if it is the one that works, it begins as something that is anything but simple. Fortunately for those attempting to develop theories, physics is the study of mechanical type effects and theoretical physics is the invention of possible causes for those effects.

I won't develop the meaning of that last statement any further in this message, but, the implication is that the job of developing physics theory is artificially made simple compared to explaining the nature of the full universe and its effects that go far beyond mechanical activity. The point is that the chosen starting point for physics theory only has to be able to account for the complexity of mechanical activities.

That is what I think. I am not telling you these things in order to set you straight. Instead, I find your responses to be very fair and cordial. So, I am merely giving my viewpoint to a sufficient extent so that you can see ahead what my responses might be to points that might be raised. There does always remain the possibility that I may wrong about this or that or whatever.

I expect everyone to begin with everything. Everyone must begin with everything. My meaning in this statement is that the beginning 'given' i.e. 'miraculous freebee' must be capable of accounting for all complexity of effects. So, I also say that the beginning point is equal to the end point in all things.

The distinction between the two is represented by the words 'potential' and 'realized'. But even in the potential stage, the theorist should be able to project all effects that will ever be observed merely from understanding his or hers own starting point.

Usually they cannot accomplish this challenge. Usually, I cannot accomplish this challenge. I see as far as I can and, if what I see looks good to me, I try it out and see how much further it leads. The correct beginning point will lead all the way.

James

p.s.: Perhaps you recognize that I write for the possible readers as well as for the addressee. :)

I wrote in my messages above that physics theory is the practice of inventing possible causes to account for mechanical type activity. I didn't forget about your theory. So, I add now for interested readers that Dr. Klingman's theory is not just a physics theory in the sense that I have defined physics theory. His work accounts for mechanical type activities and for the existence of intelligent life. His work, expressing this in my own words, is a universe theory. Dr. Klingman is invited to correct or clarify anything that I say about his work.

I appreciate your appraisal of my approach, and I agree with your goal, if not with every specific. And I never feel attacked by your remarks. So if you are trying to call others' attention to my work, thanks. But if you are simply reminding me that I am not the object of your remarks, don't worry about it. I feel like I generally understand your remarks.

I am not sure how to characterize my system as to its being simple or complex; it looks like a mixture of both. One thing is that I use the computer to get quick results and it shows the true nature of it, but I think someday it might be possible to put it in standard mathematical formulas. As a matter of fact I have already seen such system which is a combination of LQG and NCG. The line crossings are expressed by harrowing mathematical expressions.

Also you can see in the last two results that I show that you get the simple 1/r result when the particles are far apart. But also the complex result when the particles are close to each other, were you get the perturbative type results. But I am not sure how this combination of simple and complex causes and results fair with your point of view.

Defining a miracle as something bizarre that leads to unexpected results, my system proves that reality is a miracle of the most bizarre type. Let me explain. You see, if you take ANY shape in any number of dimensions then that can be decomposed into lines on each axis and you will be back to where we started. Then here is even a stranger thing, if you put any rule (like .63 of line A bigger than .27 line B) other than these random lines the system creeks to halt, no dynamic universe can be generated. Of course, if you do the above rule randomly millions of times then you are back to the original system. If you apply that rule 50% of the time for example the system will halt and not become dynamic. This is the only design that leads to reality. That is the grand miracle.

What’s even more astounding is that many people say, well, is there anything beyond our reality. The answer is NO, no other design is available for any other reality, sorry.

Of course I am not 100% sure, but I feel this system in the minimum points to the true nature of reality , if it is not the exact nature.

This thread is about what you think and not so much what I think. However, I am separating one paragraph out from replying to the rest of the message. The reason is because it seems to indicate to me that my point wasn't clear. I use the word miracle to expose the lack of scientific support for arguments that suggest that complexity can arise from simplicity. The evidence for the failure of this approach is that one simple given is never enough. Even though it is accepted for free and is itself a miracle, it is never enough and eventually requires the additon of other given's to fill in the gaps that the first simple miracle failed to account for.

In theoretical physics, the evidence for this problem is seen in the establishement of separate fundamental forces. It is also evident in what I refer to as the 'fog of complexity'. By this I mean the assumption or insistence that the steps for the necessary process to move from one's starting point to the observed results exists and can be considered to be accounted for although we really can't point it out. The fog of complexity obscures it and prevents us from pointing it out. I suggest otherwise. I suggest that the 'fog of complexity' is an unscientific smokescreen hiding lack of enough knowledge. The programming of the computer probably appears to some people as a 'fog of complexity'. However, it is anything but a 'fog'.

"Also you can see in the last two results that I show that you get the simple 1/r result when the particles are far apart. But also the complex result when the particles are close to each other, were you get the perturbative type results. But I am not sure how this combination of simple and complex causes and results fair with your point of view."

Results can certainly be simple or complex. My point had to do with getting from one's starting point to the results whatever they may be. As an analogy: One may insert a few numbers and a few equations as input for a computer; however, the programming of the computer is not simple and not seen. The programming gets you from here to there by complex processing that is already set up step by step to get you to the result with no gaps or magic. Everything is prescribed to serve your needs in exactly the way that is necessary to get you your answer. Surface appearances aside, no logical exercise moves from simple to complex in its totality. Enough about what I think. Just want my position to be clear.

Sorry for the late reply, I had to clarify things with James and present some results that could be useful for discussion. I will pick on the points you have made and see if I can clarify certain things.

Actually funny enough is that this whole thing started as a Joke. One day few of us were chatting in office about religion, purpose of life and reality in a very time killing style (not serious). So everybody was voicing his opinion with all kinds of wild spins on things followed by laughs. When my turn came, I had to say something weird and funny, so I said reality is made of things like circles with relations between them just like numbers, we are not real. I got the biggest laugh and everybody started walking back to their office shaking their head. While I had a general idea in my head but never articulate it verbally until then. I said to myself yes, that is what I have been mulling over all this time and it sounds reasonable.

Why do I tell you this story? Because I really felt that there is too much philosophy and every day we get more of it and I did not like that. Actually the reason we were laughing is that we knew that everybody was having his philosophy and that was really funny, how can there be infinite versions of truth. That is why you only see few lines of the original philosophical thinking the rest is all simulations and calculations. I want to leave any conclusion until the last results are obtained. Especially my theory is strictly about particles and forces, nothing related to cosmos yet, but of course that does not mean I will not indulge informally.

Anyway, your points about science describing and reality beyond observation are related. The reason is that so far science does not have access to ontological entities so it forces us to describe. So that suggests to people, that maybe other things lay beyond. What I hope is that my theory solves these together and more. First, it says the model is well born that even if you take it as an epistemological model it looks very well. And if you look at the end of my last reply to James that all indication is that there is nothing beyond on multiple counts. The model is all that is needed and there is no other design available anyway.

Also, the model at its heart is fractal of the Ising model type. I will describe that in detail one day soon I hope. But I want to mention something interesting about the model, specifically on how potential energy and kinetic are related. From the model when lines cross they are removed from the system thus lowering energy and moves the expectation value of the position to indicate a force that will result in a movement were the particle gained a kinetic energy.

Quote"...the critical pile of sand is very much like a critical mass of plutonium, in which chain reaction is just barely on the verge of running away into a nuclear explosion -but doesn't. The microscopic surfaces and edges of the grains are interlocked in every conceivable combination, and are just ready to give way. So when a falling grain hits there's no telling what might happen. Maybe nothing . Maybe just a tiny shift in a few grains. Or maybe, if one tiny collision leads to another in just the right chain reaction, a catastrophic landslide will take off one whole face of the sand pile."Complexity"("The emerging science at the edge of order and chaos") M. Mitchell Waldrop. Penguin books, London N.Y. 1994

Quote....Just as a steady trickle of sand drives a sand pile to organise itself into a critical state, a steady input of of energy or water or electrons drives a great many systems in nature to organise themselves in the same way . They become a mass of intricately interlocking subsystems just barely on the edge of criticality -with breakdowns of all sizes ripping through and rearranging things just often enough to keep them on the edge." "Complexity" M. Mitchell Waldrop.

I have been calling that balance points ( sometimes tipping points). Where the outcome, which could be massive, is unpredictable, as it can go any "direction". The "direction" being determined by any variable that can affect the system at the tiniest scale of interaction. Which gives non determinism and a link between macroscopic complexity and the seemingly -probabilistic- characteristic of nature at the atomic and sub atomic scales. There is interaction between -the forces acting upon and within- the existing structure and the new input. Making it more than just the entirely predictable -simple- mechanical processes, or progression through an already formed structural history, both of which have severe, adverse philosophical consequences.

thank you for writing to me. It is quite easy for there to be multiple versions of the truth because it isn't simple, just black and white, but there are many different ways of looking at and describing the same things in my opinion. Whether it is truth or not does not depend upon any individual's opinion or even consensus but how well it corresponds to what exists or existed in nature independently ie without human observation or description.

RE. reality being mathematical. Max Tegmark wrote a paper giving such a proposition. But considered in far more detail. It can be found here- Max Tegmark's site It is under Cosmology publications, no. 219

The point he makes, that the ultimate TOE from which everything else might be derived could be mathematically very simple, the ultimate reductionist theory, but in contrast the fullest explanation of reality would be the most full of "baggage" (That human beings require to understand but that the universe does not require at all, to be what it is and function)is well worth making imo. (That's my own understanding of what he was saying so I hope that that's not misrepresenting what he meant. Best to read it yourself.)

The TOE equation or code might be all that the universe requires but alone it explains nothing of the vast complexity of reality. By throwing out the relationships of ideas, hypotheses, theories and philosophy, as unnecessary I think physics (certainly its nascent explanatory power) is diminished.

Quote-".."The complexity revolution began the first time someone said, 'Hey I can start with this amazingly simple system, and look -it gives rise to these immensely complicated and unpredictable consequences.'" Instead of relying on the the Newtonian metaphor of clock work predictability, complexity seemed to be based upon metaphors more closely akin to the growth of a plant from a tiny seed or the unfolding of a computer program from a few lines of code or perhaps even the organic, self organised flocking of simpleminded birds." "Complexity" M. Mitchell Waldrop 1994. The quote in that passage is from Brian Arthur.

You have some conversation started now. I have read what you have said and visited your site. I think you will find both some amatuers and professionals who think along similar lines. I don't see it as something that I could agree with. So, I will bow out. Good luck in your efforts.

The reason it took me so long to reply is interesting. I had this reference on Chaos( which I think you are alluding to) sitting in my computer for sometime and wanted to go over it, but did not have the time. The reason is that quantum chaos theory along with SED are the only ones which have a derivation of the Bohr model. So I wanted to see if I can spot some connection with my theory since it also derives the Bohr model. Maybe I will say something more in that regard later, but you may find chapters 30-38 of interest.

no I wasn't alluding to that work. Just indicating that I think chaos and complexity most likely have some foundational role in the ongoing formation of the Object universe, the source or material reality, from which our Image reality is formed.

"According to Porter, the new analysis leads to several conclusions. For example, it shows that the density of cosmic rays is higher than anticipated in the outer regions of the galaxy and beyond the central galactic plane. In addition, the total amount of gamma radiation from cosmic ray electrons due to interactions with infrared and visible light – which consist of photons of much lower energy than gamma rays – is larger than previously thought."

So instead of a halo of dark matter, they find a halo of cosmic rays. We certainly know mass turns to energy, but if the opposite is true, what would be the circumstances? If light collapses into elemental particles, wouldn't it leave a corresponding vacuum and wouldn't the cumulative effect resemble gravity? Such that gravity is not simply an effect of mass, but energy turning into mass, leaving a vacuum. So that what is on the perimeter of galaxies isn't a halo of dark matter, but energy condensing into matter, with increasing density the further toward the center of the galaxy.

How could it be tested? It would certainly push the boundaries of what's measurable.

"An in-depth analysis by scientists from the U.S. Department of Energy's Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory (PPPL) zeroed in on tiny, bubble-like islands that appear in the hot, charged gases—or plasmas—during experiments. These minute islands collect impurities that cool the plasma. And it is these islands, the scientists report in the April 20 issue of Physical Review Letters, that are at the root of a long-standing problem known as the "density limit" that can prevent fusion reactors from operating at maximum efficiency."

So fusion naturally produces "bubbles of impurities?" Where would "impurities" come from, in plasma? Could this be mass condensing out of energy?

Here is the most important first result from the three results that I will show. The results confirm that the classical Bohr Model falls out from QSA model which encompasses QM and QFT.

Please always refer to these wiki

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr_radius[/url]

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr_model[/url]

this is the result of simulating two particles with a width of 1823 which is close to 1822.8885 for electron compton wavelength (just simplification)interacting at a seperation of around Bohr radius which is

1/(m*alpha)=1/(.00054858*.007297352569) = 249801.3

the raw data is below from the program with int=50. also make this change in the program to get these results

here I show the second and third results. all to be discussed in the reply.

first I show (attachment) the 1/r law generated by the system. I just compute few more points in the same simulation for the Bohr model result. And then plot distance vs energy(P.E.) and do curve fitting.

second (see attachment) , the running phase of the charge until its relative stabilization. The interaction starts when the particles are very close to each other. the interpretation of the results in quite bit more involved, but shows the basic feature.

Now add this -- There is no difference between inanimate and animate, ultimately. However, thought cannot truly describe/approximate what it is not, ultimately. Ultimate and fundamental unification extends/involves concepts like F=ma AND the integrated and interactive nature of being, the body, thought, and experience (including space). DREAMS MATTER.

Yes, agree with others that this is an interesting, well written and thought provoking article. I have a comment.

"Would it be merely classical logic on classical bits, or would they harness the unique properties of quantum logic? "

Do you believe Schrodinger, who said in 1936, that entanglement was not A difference from classical mechanics, but THE difference? So we are talking about entanglement here, as a few others have noted.

Regarding the irreversibility of quantum processes: that is because we are measuring. I see qm as a theory of measurement, not necessarily the most fundamental theory of Nature. If you did not measure, then quantum processes are reversible.

Quantum gravity is ultimately dependent upon the space being inertial, gravitational, and electromagnetic -- ALL of them, at once -- in a balanced and equivalent fashion. This fundamentally demonstates/involves/includes instantaneity. Dreams do all of this.